MOHINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a Clerk in the D.A.V. College, Karnal, filed CWP No. 4059 of 1990 claiming regularisation of his services. This writ petition was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court. It was held that the post of Clerk on which the petitioner had been appointed has not been sanctioned by the Education Department and that the salary was being paid to him only out of the amalgamated funds deposited for the benefit of the students. Since the College was not getting any reimbursement qua the salary of the petitioner from the State, the Court found that there was no violation of the regulations of Service. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed in limine on June 7, 1990. Presumably in response to a letter dated July 29,1990, the College informed the petitioner vide its registered A.D. letter dated August 17,1990 that he bad been relieved from service w.e.f. June 8,1990 vide letter No. 165 dated June 21 1990. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court again through the present writ petition.

(2.) A two-fold grievance has been made. The order is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of an opportunity of hearing before his service could be terminated. It is further claimed that the College has appointed one Mr, Pardeep Kumar as Clerk after terminating the services of the petitioner and as such the impugned action is vitiated

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that the petitioner had been appointed purely on ad hoc basis and that he had no right to the post. It has been further stated that the services of the petitioner had been terminated immediately after the decision of C.W.P. No. 4059 of 1990 and since the petitioner had not initially accepted the order, which were sought to be served him, it was sent to him vide registered letters dated June 21, 1990 and July 7, 1990. It has been further pointed out that Mr. Pardeep Kumar has been appointed as a Clerk on Part-time basis and the petitioner cannot make any grievance in that behalf as he has no right to the post.