RAMAKANT DIXIT Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated August 6, 1981, terminating the services of the petitioner in pursuance of the proviso to Subrule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

(2.) . A requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange to sponsor qualified and experienced persons for appointment as General Duty Medical Officers (Ayurvedic) Grade II in the Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi. The petitioner was also sponsored as one of the eligible candidates and appeared for selection. The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Physician under Central Government Health Scheme, Delhi on ad-hoc basis pending filling up the post by the nominee of the Union Public Service Commission on the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter dated July 25, 1980, One of the conditions was that the private practice of any kind, whatsoever is prohibited. The petitioner joined the post and earned one increment. By the impugned order passed in pursuance of the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') the Director General of Health Services terminated the services oFthe petitioner under Central Gowernment Healch Scheme, Delhi and directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances For the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately after the termination of his service.

(3.) . The petitioner on the next dale i.e., August 7, 1981 submitted an appeal/review under Rule 5 (2) to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare disclosing certain facts and asking for immediate reinstatement. The Director by his letter dated September !0, 1981 called for certain information from Kalyan Puri Police Stntion. No decision was taken on the representation of the petitioner. "I lie petitioner then submitted to another representation to the State Minister of Health without any response and then preferred the present writ petition.