KRISHAN LAL Vs. SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims to have been appointed as a Driver on Daily Wages Basis in January, 1991 It appears that he continued to work in that capacity upto September, 1991. Vide order dated 1-10-1991 petitioner was appointed in a leave vacancy as a fulfiedged Driver for a period of 35 days. A copy of this order has been filed as annexure "4" to the writ petition By order dated 21st September, 1992 the services of the petitioner have been terminated and the directions have been issued for the realisation of the amount which has been paid to him for the period after his tenure came to an end. It Us against this order that this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) AS mentioned above petitioner was initially appointed on Daily Wages basis and subsequently was appointed in a leave vacancy for a limited period. He as such does not have any right to the post. Supreme Court in Director v. Smt P. Srivastava, JT 1992 (4) SC 489, has laid down that the appointment made for a fixed period comes to an end automatically after the expiry of the period for which .the employee was appointed. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the services of the petitioner have been regularised can not be accepted. There is no such order of regularisation of his service.

(3.) IF an order has been passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to a person who was entitled to it. it is open to the aggrieved person to move an application before the authority which has passed the adverse order for recalling that order and if that authority is satisfied that the order was passed in violation of Principles of natural justice it is bound to recall it and pass a fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to him