GIRIRAJSINH JORAVARSINH Vs. JILLA PANCHAYAT, JUNAGADH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the abovereferred to decree, the appellate preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1977, in the District Court at Junagadh. The learned Assistant Judge, Junagadh, who heard the appeal has dismissed the same by judgment and decree dated March 18, 1981 giving rise to the present appeal. The fact that the appellant was appointed purely on temporary basis and his services were liable to be terminated on his not being selected for the post is not in dispute. This is quite evident from the terms mentioned in appointment order which is produced at Exh. 27. The scheme for pre-service training for clerks recruited to Panchayat services was framed on March 22, 1966, i.e. even before the appointment of the appellant as Clerk. This is evident from Government resolution dated January 1, 1968, which is produced by the respondents at Exh. 39. By resolution dated January 1, 1968, it was stipulated that the trainee would be given maximum 3 chances to pass the pre-service training examination. Subsequently, it was decided that a Junior Clerk would be given 4 chances to pass pre-service training examination and if he failed, he would be liable to be discharged from service. It is not in dispute that the appellant was sent for "in service training" and he had failed to pass pre-service training examination in 4 attempts. As the appellant failed to pass pre-service training examination, his services were liable to be terminated. Under the circumstances, no exception can be taken to order dated September 29, 1971, by which the appellant was discharged from service.

(3.) The contention that the order by which the appellant has been discharged from service is contrary to the provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution has also no sub-stance. Both the courts on construction of the discharge order have concluded that the appellant is not dismissed from service, but this is a case of discharge from service simpliciter. This is neither a case of dismissal from service nor removal from service. The appellant has been discharged from service on the ground of unsuitability. as he could hot pass pre-service training examination within stipulated time and attempts. It is Well-settled by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that a temporary government servant has no right to hold post and his services are liable to be terminated in accordance with relevant service rules and/or terms of contract. It is not the case of the appellant that he was discharged from service because of any misconduct. In the appointment order, it was clearly mentioned that the appointment of the appellant was temporary and was liable to be terminated without giving notice, if the appellant failed to get himself selected to the post. By not passing the pre-service training examination, the appellant could not get himself selected for the post. Order of termination simpliciter having been passed in the case of appellant, I am of the view that provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution are not attracted to the facts of the present case and the order of termination is neither illegal nor incoperative in law. Therefore, second sub-stantial question of law is answered in the affirmative and against the appellant.