RAJAN M T Vs. ARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a temporary driver working in the 1st respondent-Panchayat on daily wage basis since 20-6-2006. THE petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Panchayat in taking steps to appoint a new driver on daily wage basis. THE question of appointment of temporary drivers in various Panchayats was the subject matter of a judgment in W.P(C) No. 26662/2005 and connected cases in which I passed Ext. P3 judgment directing that even temporary drivers can be engaged only after inviting applications from public and making a selection from the applicants. THE petitioner's contention is that the Panchayat is now taking steps to appoint another person without inviting applications. THE petitioner contends that insofar as he has been recruited after a notification inviting applications published in the notice boards of the Panchayat Office and other Government Offices, he was appointed after a selection process in accordance with Ext. P3 judgment and therefore he cannot be terminated from service. THE petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) AT the time of admission, I passed the following interim order:

(3.) AS far as the contention of the petitioner that he has been appointed after a selection process is concerned, I am not inclined to countenance that contention. The fact that the notice inviting applications has been published in the notice boards of the Panchayat and other Government offices would not, according to me, be sufficient publication of the notification inviting applications. It is not as if every qualified driver of the the Panchayat would go to the Panchayat Office, Village Office etc., to find out whether any notifications are put in the notice board inviting applications. Apart from the same, drivers of other Panchayats are also entitled to be considered for such public employment, who would have no notice of such publication. Therefore, I am of opinion that unless the notification inviting applications is published in at least one news paper, it cannot be said to be a proper acceptable selection process. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that since he has been appointed after a regular selection process his services could not be terminated.