SHRI OM PAL Vs. DELHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.05.2001 in OA No.1371/2001, order dated 18.02.2000 in OA No.1810/99 and the order dated 21.09.2001 in RA No.290/2001 in OA No.1371/2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi. The facts giving rise to the filing of the OA can be summarized as under:- The petitioner was appointed as a safai karmachari with respondent No.1 vide office order No.1/1991 dated 8.01.1991. Vide order dated 05.03.1999 purporting to be passed in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service), Rules, (1965), respondent No.1 terminated the service of the petitioner. The petitioner filed OA 1810/1999 seeking declaration as a quasi permanent employee and also sought quashing of the order whereby his services were terminated. The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.02.2000 noted that Rule 2 (b) and 3 on which reliance was placed by the petitioner in support of his claim for being declared as a quasi permanent employee had been deleted vide gazette notification dated 11.03.1989 and accordingly dismissed the OA. OA No.1371/2000 was then filed by the petitioner again challenging the order dated 05.02.1999 whereby his services were terminated. The OA was dismissed vide order 4.05.2001 being barred by principles of res judicata. RA 290/2001 was then filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 4.05.2001 passed in OA 1871/2000. The review application was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2001.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that Rule 2(b) and 3 of CCS (Temporary Services), Rules 1965 were deleted vide Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, Notification No.12011/3/88 Estt.(c) dated 22.02.1989 published as GSR No.145 in the Gazette of India dated 11.03.1989 and the deletion came into effect from that very date. Therefore, the case of petitioner for declaration as a quasi permanent employee, passed upon the aforesaid deleted rules, is wholly misplaced.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner was never appointed on regular basis, his appointment continues to be temporary and consequently it could be terminated at any point of time after giving one month's notice, without assigning any reason.