DARYAO SINGH Vs. HARYANA TOURISM CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.10.1997 (Annexure P -2) passed by the respondent, whereby petitioner was relieved from duty. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is a non -speaking and cryptic order. No reason, whatsoever, has been assigned by the respondent, while passing the impugned order. She further submits that pursuant to the communication dated 16.8.1991 (Annexure P -1), petitioner successfully completed his training of 2 years. Under Clause 1 of communication dated 16.8.1991 (Annexure P -1), training period of the petitioner was never extended. Although, no order of regular appointment was issued in favour of the petition yet he was entitled to be considered for appointment on regular basis in view of the order dated 1.6.1999 passed by this court in, 1999(4) S.C.T 35 : CWP No. 18474 of 1996 (Dharamvir and others v. State of Haryana and another). Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that in fact the present petitioner was petitioner No. 21 in CWP No. 18474 of 1996, but he withdrew his writ petition, for the reason that present impugned order dated 24.10.1997 (Annexure P -2) came to be passed during the pendency of CWP No. 18474 of 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that in view of the order dated 30.9.1999 passed by the LP A Bench in LP A No. 866 of 1999 (Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. Dharamvir and others), case of the petitioner was squarely covered, because the reasonable and genuine claim of the petitioner was never considered by the respondent authority. She prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present writ petition.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.