DHARAM VIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the termination order, Annexure P3.

(2.) The petitioner has averred that after an interview along with three other candidates, he was appointed as a peon by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Dadri after having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he joined the service as a Peon in Tehsil Office, Dadri 1.9.1989. He was appointed against a permanent post on regular basis against class IV vacancies. He is working since 1.9.1989 and completed two years of continuous service on 31.8.1991. His services were terminated on 28.8.1991 on the ground that his appointment was ad hoc and that Peons have been appointed on regular basis. He has further averred that he was appointed on regular basis and, thus, termination of his services could not have taken place. The other persons who were appointed along with the petitioner were at serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the merit list and were being allowed to serve on the same posts. Their names have been mentioned as Jhandu Ram, Satbir, Hari Krishan.

(3.) It has been further averred by the petitioner that his services have been terminated only on the ground that he had been declared medically unfit by the Chief Medical Officer, Bhiwani though he claims that he was declared medically fit vide letter dated 29.11.1990, Annexure P4. The order of termination of his services was passed because of letter dated 8.5.1991 sent by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana under the heading "policy and Procedure for making ad hoc appointments against the posts which are within the purview of HPSC/SSB". This letter (Annexure P5) does not apply to him as he was holding a Class IV post which was outside the purview of Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana.