STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. OMKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 was engaged for 89 days to work as a Class IV employee in a Government school. On 12th September, 1998, the said engagement came to an end and, accordingly, respondent No. 1 was disengaged. On 14th September, 1998, respondent No. 1 was re -engaged in the self -same school on the same terms and conditions. The said engagement of respondent No. 1 came to an end on 11th December, 1998. In the meantime, on 14th November, 1998, respondent No. 2 was engaged in another Government school to serve as a Class IV employee on temporary basis until further orders. It was stated that the said engagement can be brought to an end at any time on a notice being given to that effect. The period of notice, however, was not mentioned. After 89 days engagement of respondent No. 1, effected from 14th September, 1998, came to an end on 11th December, 1998; on 15th December, 1998, respondent No. 1, too, was engaged as a Class IV employee in the self -same school on temporary basis until further orders.

(2.) BY two separate orders, both dated 1st November, 1999, temporary engagements of the respondents were brought to an end with effect from the date of their engagement, as the purport of the said orders dated 1st November, 1999 was to cancel the very engagement of the respondents. The reasons were that the respondents were engaged (i) without there being any advertisement, calling for names from the Employment Exchange and without being selected by a competent selection committee; and (ii) in breach of ban on appointments imposed by Government Orders dated 17th July, 1991 and 3rd November, 1997.

(3.) BEFORE us, it was contended on behalf of the State that, since, on the facts accepted in the writ petition, the appointments were void ab initio; the question of the respondents suffering any civil consequence, by reason of declaration thereof as was done by the impugned orders dated 1st November, 1999; did never arise. To that, the contention of the respondents was that the respondents acquired temporary status in the Government by reason of the orders by which they were engaged and such status could only be altered by taking recourse to law, provided in The Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the œ1975 Rules ). It was contended that, in any event, respondents, who were engaged with a promise to be remunerated, and the respondents having acted on the basis thereof; they could not simply be stopped from being engaged without even letting them know that such steps are being taken. It was contended that it was a case of livelihood of the respondents, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, before affecting their right to life, at least, they were entitled to an opportunity of hearing.