G S SHIVAPRAKASH Vs. CENTRAL SILK BOARD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the termination order passed by the respondent-board and sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 9-6-1992. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to continue him in employment as 'editor' pursuant to the memo of appointment dated 3-6-1992 vide Annexure-B which was accepted by him as per Annexure-C and further sought direction to continue the facilities extended to the petitioner from the date he was appointed for discharging his duties urging the following legal contentions:

(2.) THE brief facts are stated hereunder to consider the various contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties: the first respondent is a statutory board constituted under the central silk board Act, 1948 (the 'act' in short) and central silk board rules of 1955 (the 'rules' for short ). The respondent in exercise of its power under Rule 28 of the rules appointed the petitioner as an 'editor' on contract basis by issuing appointment order. After complying with certain formalities including execution of an agreement for a period of 2 years from the said date. He continued to hold the said post from 5-6-1986 without any break in service and his appointment was being renewed every year on expiry of the last date of the contract of appointment. It is stated that, the board has taken decision for appointing the petitioner for the post of 'editor' as per the proceedings maintained in respect of contractual appointment of the petitioner.

(3.) AS per the board's decision, the chairman of the board accorded approval for selection to the post of 'editor' for Indian silk on temporary basis for two years and fill up the post on contract basis on consolidated (government) salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. After approval from the board, the advertisement was published in the local newspapers. In response to that, the petitioner was one of the candidates and he had been called for the interview for the said post. After the candidates were interviewed three persons' names were included in the panel. Based on the performance of the interviewed candidates, selection committee recommended selection and appointment on contract basis of the candid ates wherein the petitioner's name was included and three other persons names were also mentioned.