K C SAXENA Vs. ROHILKHAND UNIVERSITY BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The order dated 12-7-1989 (Annexure-4 to the petition) by which the petitioner's services were ter minated without assigning any reason on the ground that the service was temporary, has been challenged by means of this writ petition.

(2.) DR. R. G. Padia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner con tends that the petitioner having been ap pointed on 4-7-1977 and worked for 12 years ought to have been regularised and should have been treated as in regular ser vice and, therefore, his services cannot be terminated in the manner aforesaid in as much as by reason of the decisions cited by him which will be referred to shortly, hereinafter, the petitioner's services ought to have been regularised and the same cannot be terminated before considera tion for regularisation was undertaken. According to him after three years of ser vice, as has been held by Apex Court in the decision cited by him, the petitioner's ser vices should have been regularised after expiry of three years and, therefore the order terminating the services of the petitioner should be set aside after having been passed after 12 years of service. DR. Padia, learned Counsel for the petitioner also contends that in the counter-affidavit the respondents have made -out that the services of the petitioner was not satisfac tory and that the petitioner's services should be terminated as a measure ol punishment since he does not attend his office regularly and had availed Medica leave for unnecessary long time. Therefon since stigma had been attached it was more necessary to hold inquiry without whicl the services cannot are dispensed with.

(3.) THE above facts goes to show that there are reasons supporting the report that the service of the petitioner is unsatis factory, particularly, when no inquiry was contemplated against him and no stigma was attached. THE termination appears to be at termination-simplicitor with in meaning of termination of temporary ser vice.