BHURA LAL PAGARE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners, who were members of the Subordinate Judicial Service and were posted as Civil Judge, Class II, pray for quashing of the separate orders passed by the State Govt. by which, on the recommendation of the High Court, services have been terminated by giving one months pay in lieu of notice. In the case of Bhurelal Pagare (M.P. No. 3277/85) and Satya Narayan Jhawar (M.P. No. 1033/86), the State Govt. has passed the orders in purported exercise of its powers under Rule 12 -A of the M.P. Govt. Servant (Temporary & Quasi Permanent) Service Rules, 1960. Petitioners further pray for consequential relief, which they shall be entitled after quashing of the orders of termination. Satya Narayan Jhawar, petitioner in M.P. No. 1033/86 has also prayed for quashing of the order of the State Govt. whereby on recommendation of the High Court, after the termination of this service as Civil Judge, Class II, his service has been returned to home (police Deptt.) of the State Govt. It may be mentioned here that this petitioner before his appointment as Civil Judge Class II was holding a confirmed appointment to the post of Asstt. Public Prosecutor. In M.P. No. 4564/92 (S.D. Banjare vs. State), writ petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition and this writ petition is being prosecuted by his heir and legal representative.

(2.) NOTWITHSTANDING the voluminous pleadings, facts which are necessary for the decision of the present writ petitions are that all the petitioners were appointed as Civil Judges. Class II; temporarily and on officiating basis, on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. After the training for 6 months, they were appointed on probation for 2 years excepting in the case of petitioner Panumati Sonchhatra, petitioner in W.P. No. 2429/95, in whose case, her training period was also extended and thereafter, she was appointed on probation fro 2 years. Matter of confirmation of all the petitioners were placed for consideration before the Full Court during the period when the petitioners were under initial or extend period of probation and on consideration of the materials placed before it; either they were not found fit for confirmation or the Full Court on consideration of the materials resolved to postpone their cases for confirmation. This has happened within a period of 4 years from the dates of appointments of the petitioners on probation, but all the petitioners were allowed to continue in service beyond the period of 4 years from the date of their initial appointment on probation fro 2 years. After the expiry of the period of 4 years, cases of the petitioners were placed for consideration on different dates before the Full Court in its meeting and on consideration of the materials placed before it, they were found unfit for confirmation and the High Court further resolved and recommended for termination of their services simplicitor. State Govt. in conformity with the recommenda on of the High Court, terminated the services of the petitioners, resorting to exercise its power under Rule 12 of the M.P. Govt. Servant (Temporary and Quasi Permanent) Service Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred as 1960, Rules) and by mentioning the said fact in the impugned orders in some of the writ petitions, whereas in some of the cases, repository of the powers has not been mentioned. However it is the stand of the State Govt. and the High Court in the writ petitions that the petitioners being not confirmed Civil Judges Class II, they have no right to the post and hence their services were terminated by giving one months notice. All the petitioners have served temporarily for 5 years continuously and have also worked on probation for period beyond 4 years from the dates of their initial appointment stand proved by the pleadings of the parties. It is common ground that service of the petitioners have been terminated without any enquiry and according to the stand of the stand of the State Govt. and the High Court, petitioners being not suitable for confirmation and they having not been confirmed, no enquiry is necessary before termination of their services.

(3.) I have heard Shri R.N. Roy for the petitioners in M.P. No. 3277/85, 3606/92 and M.P. No. 4564/92, Shri N.(sic). Jain, Sr. Adv., for the petitioner in M.P. No. 1033/86, Shri N.S. Kale, Sr. Adv., for the petitioner in M.P. No. 4753/ and Shri N.K. Shukla for the petitioner in W.P. No, 2429/95.I have also heard Shri V.S. Shroti and Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, Advocates who represented the High Court before me.