LAWS(MPH)-1959-9-1

MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. AMBIKA PRASAD GUPTA

Decided On September 14, 1959
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Appellant
V/S
AMBIKA PRASAD GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India far the issue of a writ of Certiorari and Mandamus.

(2.) THE case for the petitioner is that the respondent Amhikaprasad was temporarily appointed by it on the post of a teacher in the year 1955. His services were dispensed with with effect from the 30th of April, 1958 by a notice dated 273-1958. Ambikaprasad appealed against the order whereby his services were terminated to the Sub-Divisional Officer Kawardha under Rule 2 of the Rules framed under Section 25 (6) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This appeal wan allowed and Ambikaprasad was ordered to be re-instated. The contention of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Kawardha is oil the face of it illegal and without jurisdiction. The validity of the impugned order is challenged on the following grounds: (i) that the appeal was filed after the prescribed period of limitation, that is to say 30 days from the date of the communication of the order appealed against, and was as such liable to be rejected on this ground alone, (ii) that the appellate authority acted illegally in holding that ambikaprasad could be treated as working on a permanent post and (iii) that it further erred in holding that the termination of his services was by way of penally and, therefore, could not be effected without a notice to show cause against the same. It was contended in this connection that the lower appellate Court failed to take into account the fact that Ambikaprasad's services were terminated because he did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as a teacher in a primary or middle school.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent No. 1 it was contended that the appointment was not temporary in, nature, that he was working in a clear vacancy and that his appointment could not be terminated without giving him an opportunity to show cause against his removal.