SATISH KUMAR Vs. JIND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an adhoc employee, is aggrieved by the order of termination of his services. He was appointed vide order dated January 14, 1991 as Office superintendent in the Jind Cooperative Sugar Mill, Jind on

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been inter alia pointed out that the Mill had advertised the post. The petitioner was not one of the applicants. The petitioner had "sought the recommendation of the then Minister of Cooperation Haryana for appointment. No other candidate eligible as per the Rules was considered at the time of offering appointment to the petitioner. 'The appointment being on purely temporary adhoc basis, the petitioner's services have been terminated in strict conformity with the terms of appointment. On these premises, the impugned action is sought to be justified.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R.K.Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner possessed the qualifications which had been prescribed at the time of his appointment and that his services could not have been terminated on the basis of some qualifications which may have been prescribed at a later stage. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been inter alia mentioned that the qualification for the post of Office Superintendent is a Degree in Arts/Commerce/Science with atleast 10 years experience in general and office administration. This qualification, admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfil. Even a replication has not been filed controverting the stand taken on behalf of the respondent. Consequently, there is nothing on the record on the basis of which it may be said that the petitioner was fully qualified for the post.