DURGA CHARAN ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to quash the order dated 26. 4. 1979 by the District Judge, Puri terminating his services with effect from 1, 6. 1979 (Annexure:3 to the writ petition) and to declare him to be continuing in service. The gist of the petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a temporary extra clerk in the office of the Sub -Registrar, Athagarh in July, 1969 and continued in the said post till August, 1969. When the employment was terminated due to want of copying the documents petitioner was issued a certificate to that effect. Thereafter, he applied to the Planning and Co -ordination Department on 24.8.1969 for re -employment and on the said application his name was recommended to the District Judge, Puri for appointment to a suitable post, The petitioner was then temporarily appointed as L.D.C., Clerk in the office of the District Judge, Puri by Order No. 188/1969 dated 18.11.1969 (Annexure -1 to the Writ Petition), It is the further case of the petitioner that all of a sudden, without any enquiry to his knowledge, the impugned order of termination was passed on 26th of April, 1979, terminating his services with effect from 1. 6. 1979. The petitioner asserts that a number of persons, about 56 in all, (vide Annexure -2 to the Writ Petition) who were appointed in the office subsequently still continue in service though his services were dispensed with without disclosing any reason. - -

(2.) THE stand taken by opposite parties 1 and 2 in their counter is that since the petitioner held a temporary appointment he had no right to the post; the impugned order is one of termination simplicitor and does not visit the petitioner with any stigma. The opposite parties further state that after the petitioner was appointed in the office of the District Judge, Puri on the basis of the recommendation received from the Planning and' Co -ordination Department, on enquiry it was revealed that he had obtained a false retrenchment certificate in as much as he had served in the office of the Sub -Registrar, Athagarh for 17 days only and he was not a retrenched personnel as contemplated in the Planning and Co -ordination Circular No. 683 -Estt. 11 -26/67 p dated 5 -2 -1968.

(3.) IN view of the discussion aforesaid the writ petition succeeds, the impugned order terminating the petitioner's service is quashed and the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in service. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order for costs.