DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not in controversy that in 1983 the Labour Commissioner, government of Madhya Pradesh, Indore (respondent No. 2) took steps to fill up certain vacant posts of Labour Sub-Inspectors by taking recurse to the methods of written examination and interview in exercise of powers vested in him under Sub-rule (4) of rule 6 of the M. P. Labour Service (Class III non-gazetted Recruitment Rules, 1966.

(2.) IT is also not in controversy that after they had successfully passed a written examination and gone through the interview held for the purpose the petitioner and sixteen other candidates were appointed to the posts of Labour Sub-Inspectors vide order dated 24-12-1983 (Annexure-F) issued by the Labour Commissioner. According to the said order, the petitioner was posted as Labour Sub-Inspector in the office of assistant Labour Commissioner at Satna. He joined his duties at Satna on 10-1-1984. Thereafter, in June, 1984, he was transferred from Satna to Bilaspur to the office of assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur (respondent No. 3) in the same capacity vide order dated 12-6-1984 (Annexure-I ).

(3.) IT was while the petitioner had been working as Labour Sub Inspector to the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner at Bilaspur in the manner stated above and completed about thirteen months on the said post, that suddenly on 12-2-1985 he received a telegraphic order dated 8-2-1985 (Annexure-J) from the Commissioner which hit him like a bolt from the blue. He was informed by the said order that his services were terminated with immediate effect as a result of his 'character verification' (Chritra Satyapan ). It is the said order which is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the grounds of being arbitrary, punitive and violative of Articles 16 and 311 of the Constitution.