GOPAL PANDIT Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, which was confirmed in appeal by the 2nd respondent and further confirmed in the revision preferred before the 1st respondent.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee by the 3rd respondent, Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat. The order of appointment would read that the appointment of the petitioner being a temporary one could be terminated at any time without any notice. The service of the petitioner was terminated by the 3rd respondent by passing the following order:-

(3.) The only reason assigned by the 3rd respondent for termination of the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 27.01.1989 (FN) was that the temporary service of the petitioner was no longer required.