M K RAGHAVAN Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to have passed the final examination in Civil Engineering from the Institute of Engineering Technology at Kum-banad in the State of Tamil nadu in 1956. Between May 1956 and May, 1959, he served as Overseer under the Collector of Puri and thereafter for six months he served under the Board of revenue. By order dated 1-4-1961, the Jharsuguda Municipal Council (Opposite party No. 1) appointed him as an Overseer. His order of appointment ran thus:-

(2.) IN April 1961, the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council wrote to the Deputy commissoner of Sambalpur pleading for sanction of permanent post of Overseer and mentioned about the petitioner's appointment. On 16th September, 1967, the director of Urban Local Bodies communicated sanction under Section 75 (11 of the orissa Municipal Act to the creation of a permanent post of overseer from the date the post had actually been filled up. In the mean time, the Superintending engineer, Northern Circle of the Public Works Department who happens to be the inspector of Local Works so far as Jharsuguda Municipality is concerned, in his inspection report made for the year 1964-65 dealing with the petitioner stated:

(3.) THE Municipal Council alone has made a return to the rule nisi. The opposite party No. 2 who is said to have found the petitioner to be not qualified though on an earlier occasion, he had held him to be properly qualified and under whose decision the petitioner's service was ultimately terminated, has not made his appearance in the proceeding to support his conclusion. The Council has Pleaded that the petitioner had a temporary appointment and his services could be terminated with a month's notice and as that has been done, he has no grievance to make. The diploma of the petitioner has not been recognised by the State government of Orissa or the Chief Engineer. Qualified Overseers and even engineers are available in this State. Lastly it is pleaded that the petitioner had a right of appeal under the Act and the writ petition should not be entertained as the petitioner has not exhausted that statutory remedy open to him.