SURESH CHANDRA Vs. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims to have been appointed on 29-4-1992 as peon on temporary basis, against leave vacancy. Thereafter vide order dated 20-5-1992 he was appointed on temporary basis. Vide order dated 26-12-1992 his services have been terminated. It is against this order that this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on two grounds viz. (1) that there is permanent vacancy and till vacancy is not filed by respondents he has right to continue on the post and it is not open to the respondents to terminate his services, and (if) the order has been passed on malafide grounds. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel.

(3.) THE three decisions viz, THE Manager Govt. Branch Press v. D. B. Balliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429, Frank Anthony PSE Association v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 313, and Belal Ibne Mohd. Siddiqui v. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, 1991 (2) UP LB EC 1326, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner do not lend any support to the petitioners case. In the case of D. B. Balliappa (supra) what was argued and decided was about arbitrary discrimination by the concerned authorities by picking out the respondent therein for termination of service, while retaining the services of this juniors. This is not the controversy raised in the instant case. In Frank Anthony PSE Association (Supra) the question relating to the rights of the minority institutions and their contents of dimensions were raised and decided. It dealt with different controversy with which the petitioner is not at all concerned. In Belal Ibne Mohd. Siddiqui (supra) the services of Junior Engineers were terminated on the ground that there is no vacancy. This court, on perusal of affidavits, came to the conclusion that there are vacancies and basis on which the services of petitioners therein were terminated, was un-sustainable and the writ petition was accordingly allowed. That is not the controversy in the Instant case, as the service of the petitioner has not been terminated on the ground of want of vacancy.