STATE OF M P Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition preferred by the State and State Authorities, the validity of the order of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench at Jabalpur (for short 'the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 1120/1992 is assailed.

(2.) THE fact of the case, in brief, are as follows: THE Respondents No. 1 to 5 were appointed as Tracers vide order dated 13-6-90 of the Settlement Officer, Ambikapur Sarguja, the fourth Petitioner herein, after subjecting them to selection process at the hands of the selection committee constituted by the Department and after seeking sponsorship of their names from the concerned Employment Exchange and after obtaining the recommendation of the selection committee. Of course, in the appointment order, it is stated that their appointments are purely temporary and they are liable to be removed in case their work is not found satisfactory or in case of indiscipline without any prior notice. THE services of the Respondents No. 1 to 5 were terminated by order dated 30th March, 1992 by Assistant Settlement Officer, Petitioner No. 3 herein. Being aggrieved by he above order of the third Petitioner, the Respondents No. 1 to 5 instituted O.A. No. 1120/92 before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal by its order dated 27-6-1998 allowed Original Application and quashed the termination order with all consequential benefits flowing from the quashing. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the State and State Authorities are before this Court by way of Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, the question that arises for our consideration and decision is whether any ground made out by the State and State Authorities to interfere with the order made by the Tribunal impugned in this writ petition. The documents placed before the Court would undeniably show that the Respondents No. 1 to 5 came to be appointed to the post of Tracers in pursuance of the employment notification issued by the fourth Petitioner and also after obtaining sponsorship by the concerned Employment Exchange and subjecting them to the tests and interviews prescribed for the post of Tracers. It is also seen that the appointment orders were issued by the fourth Petitioner on the recommendation of the selection committee constituted for selection purpose. Simply because the appointment order contains a clause, as per which, the 4th Petitioner had reserved power to terminate the services of Respondents No. 1 to 5 in case there is no need for their service or in case it comes to his knowledge that they are guilty of indiscipline and dereliction of duties, it cannot be said that the State and State Authorities could act arbitrarily and unreasonably violating Article 14 postulated. It is not a simple case of ad hoc or stop-gap arrangement appointments. The Respondents No. 1 to 5 were appointed on regular basis against the then existing vacancies in the post of Tracers. There is no need for us to dilate on this aspect further, because, the impugned termination orders could not be sustained in law, if not for any reason but for the reason that the termination though stated to be termination simplicitor, actually, it was made in pursuance of a serious allegation made against the Respondents No. 1 to 5. This is disclosed by the Petitioners themselves in paras 7 and 8 of the statement of objections/return filed by them before the Tribunal. They read as follows: