KISHORE KUAMR INDURKAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was filed as Original Application No. 122/1996 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal which after closer of the Tribunal has been transmitted to this Court and is registered as Writ Petition. The petitioner who was appointed in the election office on the post of Driver has approached the Tribunal against the order dated 15-12-1995 by which services of the petitioner were sent in the Collector's office for the election work w.e.f. the date of relieving. It is contended by the petitioner that in the establishment of the election office there was a post of Driver for which the names were called from the employment exchange and upon selection an order of appointment was issued in respect of petitioner on 25-1-1993. However, the petitioner was appointed on contingency basis. One Ajay Satankar was appointed on regular basis vide order dated 11th October, 1995 and the petitioner raised a protest by filing a representation stating that since he was working from 1993 he too be given the benefit of regular appointment. The petitioner was sent to work in the election branch of Collectorate, Bhopal only for the purposes that he should be removed from the post as the post in the said election office was created only up to 29-2-1996. However, nothing was done with respect to the consideration of such a claim of the petitioner and ultimately on completion of the election work his services were dispensed with on 29-2-1996. That being so, because of high handedness of the respondents the petitioner was terminated from services. The relief was claimed to the effect that the direction be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Driver and regular pay scale be given to him.

(2.) Upon service of the notice of the petition a return was filed by the respondents and it is contended by the respondents that since the petitioner was sent to work only in the election office and since the post was created only up to 29th February, 1996, after this date the services of the petitioner were rightly dispensed with. There was no question of regularization of the petitioner as in terms of the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner, he could be terminated at any time. The respondent No. 3 by filing a return has contended that rightly the petitioner was terminated. The appointment of the respondent No. 3 was properly made and therefore such a claim made by the petitioner is misconceived. It is thus contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) By filing a rejoinder the petitioner has contended that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post which was in contingency but that appointment was also made after selection and soon after when the regular vacancy of the post of Driver became available in the month of October, 1995 the petitioner should have been appointed on the post of Driver. Instead of doing this the respondent No. 3 was given the appointment on regular basis and when the objection to this effect was raised by the petitioner he was sent to work in a place where a temporary post was sanctioned only for a particular period so that the services of the petitioner could be dispensed with. This being a mala fide action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner still would be entitled to grant of relief.