BIMAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bimal Kumar, through present petition, filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order (Annexure P-6) dated August 13,1984, vide which it was ordered that he shall remain on ad hoc basis and his services as Secretary Municipality could not be regularised under the Rules. It was further stated in the said Rules that the post of Secretary, Municipality would be filled up in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules.

(2.) Brief facts, on which the impugned order has been challenged, would reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary in the Notified Area Committee, Hathin (as it then was) on September 22,1977 on ad hoc basis for a period of three months through Employment Exchange. Vide order dated May 17, 1979. Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, recommended the petitioner's case for regularisation. Thereafter, the Government vide letter dated January 1, 1980 decided to regularise the services of those employees who had put in two years service on 31st December, 1979 subject to certain conditions. In pursuance of the notification referred to above, it is the positive case of the petitioner that his services were regularised vide order dated 16th October, 1980. copy whereof is placed on record as Annemre P-5. The petitioner in the manner aforesaid came to be employed in the year 1977 and was regularised on loth October, 1980. However, without hearing him and giving any show cause notice, the order of his regularisation {Annexure P-5) was cancelled vide impugned order (Annexure P-6) dated 13th August, 1984. It is this order as has been mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment that has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order cannot possibly sustain for various reasons and in particular that while passing the same, the petitioner was not heard in the matter at alL He further states that the only reason spelled out in the written statement for passing the impugned order is that the petitioner was not having the requisite qualifications for the post under contention i.e. Secretary and that is factually incorrect as the petitioner as per rules governing the qualifications of the Secretary was qualified being a graduate.