SURESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to quash the resolution dated 9.4.2013, whereby the President-in-Council (PIC) decided to remove them from the post of Driver/Fireman with further direction to the respondents not to interfere with the services of the petitioners.

(2.) It is contended by Shri Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were duly appointed by the respondents. They satisfactorily performed their duties. The new President was elected, who intends to engage the persons of his choice and, therefore, they want to terminate the petitioners' services. In support of his contentions, he relied on (Mission Director, RCH/NRHM vs. Ranjit Jain and another, 2011 4 MPHT 266). He submits that the nature of work which is being performed by the petitioners is continuous in nature and, therefore, the petitioners have a right to continue.

(3.) Prayer is opposed by Shri Ankur Maheshwari, Shri A.K.Nirankari and Smt. Sangeeta Pachauri, learned counsel for the other side.