PAWAN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13-6-2000 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the respondent No. 2.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Driver on daily wages by order dated 15-5-1992 to drive the vehicle of respondent No. 2 District Panchayat, Shahdol. He was appointed in the regular pay-scale as Driver by order dated 9-12-1996. He was served with the show-cause notice dated 24-5-2000 (Annexure P-7) by which his services were proposed to be terminated on the grounds that-- (a) the names were not called from the Employment Exchange, (b) advertisement was not issued, (c) Selection Committee was not constituted, and (d) interview was not taken. The petitioner submitted its reply on 29-5-2000 as per Annexure P-8 stating therein that he was appointed in the regular pay scale taking his work and conduct into account during the last four years. It is also stated therein that the appointing authority was fully satisfied about his competence to drive the vehicle and then a resolution was passed by the District Panchayat for his appointment. The petitioner claimed that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. His services were terminated by the impugned order dated 13-6-2000 (Annexure P-1 ). Two additional grounds were added for his termination which were not set up in the show-cause notice. These grounds were that-- (a) the petitioner has wrongly written the name of his father and the place of his residence as Shahdol, and (b) there was no post of the driver in the District Panchayat. The basis for the termination of the services has been pointed out as circular dated 14-2-2000 (Annexure R-2) of the State Government.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that the sanctioned post did exist and it was not mentioned even in the show-cause notice that there was no such post. The circular dated 14-2-2000 was not applicable to his case as he was a regular employee and not a daily-wage worker. The name of his father was wrongly written through inadvertence and the place of residence cannot be a ground for discrimination. He was appointed by the competent authority after following the proper procedure and the termination of his services is illegal.