UNION OF INDIA Vs. ABDUL RAZZAQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. N. Ray, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant who argued at length. Learned counsel Sri AN. Bhargava sub mitted that he has no instruction in the matter. Sri B. N. Agarwal another learned counsel for the opposite party did not ap pear though the matter was taken up in the revised list.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was appointed as Fire Engine Driver in 192-Petroleum Platoon Army Supply at Jhansi. Promotion and re-classification of fire service person nel is done by A. S. C. Records (Supply), Bangalore who is the competent authority. According to the plaintiff, he was not given an opportunity but he was terminated, which was illegal and prayed for reinstatement and it was contended that the rever sion and dismissal from service were in con travention of Article 311 (2) of the Constitu tion and so those were against natural jus tice and equity. THE learned trial Court did not consider the suit filed by the respondent and the evidence on record but dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was never employed permanently and as such he was not entitled for the relief claimed for.

(3.) ON perusal of the records, it appears that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was ap pointed as Fire Engine Driver in 192-Petroleum Platoon Army Supply Corps. , Jhansi and that in the appointment it was stipulated that he might be terminated at any time without any notice and he never claimed to be a permanent employee and that the learned advocate for appellant has submitted that the lower appellate Court came to a jumping conclusion and the judg ment of the lower appellate Court is er roneous and as such in this way he wanted that this appeal should be allowed.