BAHADUR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the validity of order dated 4-9-2000, by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated without giving any show cause notice or conducting any enquiry. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of a vehicle driver in the establishment of respondent No. 1 vide order dated 5-4-1999. The said order was issued after the selection of the petitioner as his name was sponsored by the employment exchange. After making selection, the select list was referred to the High Court and after obtaining approval from the High Court, the order of appointment was issued. However, the appointment of the petitioner was made for 89 days only. As the post was said to be regular, selection process was done only for the appointment on a regular post, on completion of 89 days service, an extension was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 28-7-1999. Before even completion of the extended period of 89 days, the order was issued by the respondent No. 1 on 15-9-1999 regularsing the services of the petitioner by removing the condition of appointment for 89 days from the order of appointment. It appears that the vacancy on the post of driver occurred on account of promotion of one Laik Mohd, who was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-III (Lower Division Clerk) in the establishment of respondent No. 1. It is further contended that the High Court was on administrative side in fact examining the correctness of the order of promotion of said Laik Mohd. and vide order dated 14-7-1999 of registry, the said order of promotion of said Laik Mohd. was quashed as a result the said Laik Mohd. was required to be reverted. Ultimately, an order was issued on 26-8-2000 and the posting of Laik Mohd. was again done on the post of driver. In view of the order passed by respondent No. 1 in respect of reversion and posting of Laik Mohd. on 26-8-2000, the order impugned dated 4-9-2000 was issued terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a representation against the said order and brought to the notice of the appointing authority the fact that said Laik Mohd. was again considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-III, was found fit for such promotion and vide order dated 5-1-2001 he was again promoted. That being so, there was no need to terminate the services of the petitioner who was selected against the regular vacancy. The representation of the petitioner was not considered. On the other hand, an advertisement was issued for calling the applications for taking part in selection for appointment on the post of driver by the respondent No. 1, therefore, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court being W.P. No. 1478/2001. The writ petition came up for hearing before this Court and while disposing of the writ petition on 10-2-2003, this Court directed that the case of the petitioner be considered for appointment on the post of driver in preference. However, no action was taken by the respondents for considering the claim of petitioner for his appointment on the post of driver, therefore, the present writ petition is required to be filed. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition:--

(2.) The writ petition was entertained and it was specifically directed by this Court on 8-5-2003 that till next date of hearing the respondent No. 1 will not appoint any person on the post of driver. However, this order was modified vide order dated 28-7-2003 and it was said that the District and Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, the respondent No. 1 will make the appointment on the post of driver which will be subject to the final decision of this writ petition and this condition be specifically mentioned in the said order of appointment.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents and it is contended that in fact the order was passed by this Court only when it was apprised that keeping the post vacant was not justified. The petitioner would not be entitled to be considered for appointment on the post as on the date mentioned in the advertisement the petitioner was over aged. However, in case a relaxation in age is granted, then only the claim of the petitioner can be considered for appointment as Driver. It is contended that in pursuance to such a memo sent by the respondent No. 1, the High Court granted the permission to fill in the post of Driver. Such a permission was granted on 17-3-2003. It is contended that till that time, there was no interim stay. However, nothing has been said by the respondents in their return whether any person was found fit for appointment or not and anybody was appointed or not. Again it was not clarified as to whether any age relaxation was granted to the petitioner or not and he was considered for appointment or not. Only this much is said in the return that the age relaxation was sought by the respondent No. 1 for the petitioner as the petitioner was found fit for appointment except the age. It is contended by the respondents in their return that the petition being based on wholly misconceived facts is liable to be dismissed.