RAM RATAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MAHARAJGANJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Chowkidar/peon on 1-4-1989 in Nazarat, Tahsil Sadar, District Maharajganj, and in pursuance of the above order he continued to work upto 6-5-1989. Thereafter, it is stated, that he worked as Chowkidar/peon for the period 13-5-1989 to 23-6-1989, 1-7-1989 to 30-9-1989, 1-2-1990 to 30-4-1990, 2-5-1990 to 29-7-1990, 25-8-1990 to 25-10-1990, 15-11-1990 to 31-12-1990, 5-1-1991 to 31-3-1991, 2-4-1991 to 30-6.1991, 3-7-1991 to 30-9-1991 and 28-10-1991 to 30-11-1991, Again from 16-12-1991 he was appointed for 42 days only and similar appointments continued to be made in favour of the petitioner thereafter. However, vide order dated 21-7-1992, the District Magistrate appointed the petitioner as Chowkidar/peon on temporary basis for indefinite period and the said order was communicated to him vide letter dated 24-7-1992 by Incharge Nazarat, Maharajganj On the basis of above appointment, the petitioner continued to work ; but it appears that another person, named, Chetman Sharma was appointed in his place. Although Sri Chetman Sharma was sought to be appointed against the post held by the petitioner ; but the petitioner was not informed about it and order terminating his service was issued to him. However, after the appointment of Sri Sharma, the petitioner was not permitted to work. It has been stated at the bar by Sri Ashok Khare that the service of Sri Chetman Sharma has also come to an end in Oct., 1992 as his appointment -h is not been extended thereafter. Petitioner appears to have represented the matter to concerned officer and no action having been taken, he has filed this writ petition for quashing the orders dated 20-8-1992, and 24-8-1992. Writ of mandamus, has also been prayed so as to restrain the respondents from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner as Chowkidar/peon in Nazarat Tahsil Sadar, Maharajganj.

(2.) On 9-9-1992 one months time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed. Again one month and no more time was granted to him to file counter-affidavit. Inspite of the stop order no counter affidavit has been filed so far, with the result the averments made in the writ petition have to be taken as correct.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the respondents action on two grounds, namely (i) petitioner was appointed vide order of the District Magistrate dated 21-7-1992 as communicated by the letter dated 24-7-1992 by the Incharge Nazarat on temporary basis for indefinite period and his services could not have been terminated except by an order in writing in accordance with the statutory rules framed in connection therewith under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, which contemplates an order in writing and atleast a months notice and (ii) a temporary appointee cannot be replaced by another temporary appointee except for a cause.