CHANDER SHEKHAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order (Annexure P-10) has been passed without granting an opportunity of hearing and the promotion of the petitioners has been cancelled in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Lekhu Singh v. The Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development,1994 1 SCT 748 and Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1993 3 SCT 747 At the time of motion hearing it was inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondents No. 4 and 5 were not eligible for the posts of Laboratory Attendants though no specific plea of their inligibility had been taken. In replication an attempt has been made to contend that respondents No. 4 and 5 are not middle pass which is the eligibility condition for the post of Laboratory Attendant. Respondents had no opportunity to rebut the new case set up in the replication. By way of replication, petitioners can be permitted only to rebut the assertions made by the respondents in written statement. No new case can be permitted to be set up in replication. However, be that as it is, since the question whether respondents No. 4 and 5 are middle pass or not is a question of fact, it is for the authorities to determine whether they are eligible for the posts in question or not. Not only this petitioners were appointed against the posts of Laboratory Attendants only temporarily. No regular promotion has ever been effected. The official respondents are at liberty to take work from any of their officials by way of stopgap arrangement according to the exigencies of service. Hence, the petitioners have no right to claim the posts against which they were asked to work temporarily or by way of stopgap arrangement.

(2.) So far as reversion of the writ petitioners vide order Annexure P-10 is concerned, their appointments were made vide annexure P-2 by way of adjustment against temporary vacant posts. It was specifically provided in the terms of their appointments that they have got no right to claim permanent service against these posts and in case their work and conduct are not found suitable, their services can be terminated without any notice at any time. The petitioners' appointments have been cancelled in terms of their appointment letters.

(3.) There is no dispute with the propositions of law laid down in the judgments cited. The observations or law laid down in SHRAWAN KUMAR JHA V/S STATE OF BIHAR, 1992 6 SLR 718 is to the effect that the appointment cannot be cancelled without giving an opportunity of hearing. In the said case appointment was cancelled not in terms of the appointment letter or any rule but on the ground that the authority which appointed the petitioner therein was not authorised to appoint him. Thus reasons for which the claimant was reverted could be shown to be non-existent by the affected persons, thus required the observance of principles of natural justice. Similarly in case,1994 1 SLR 120 seniority was sought to be revised, which though an administrative act but it was held that since it carries civil consequences, therefore, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. In the case in hand the petitioners had no right against the temporary vacant posts. If the petitioners had been allowed to work on the posts of Laboratory Attendants by way of stopgap arrangement, they cannot claim as a matter of right to work on the said posts till eternity. It is for the administration to get work from its officials according to the exigencies of service. We may hasten to add that concededly respondents No. 4 and 5 were employed as class IV employees, though named as Chowkidars/Malies as far back as in 1974 while petitioners were employed as class IV employees in 1992 i.e. after almost a decade. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have no other avenue for promotion. If they have been accommodated though temporarily against the posts of Laboratory Attendants, in our considered view respondents No. 2 and 3 have attempted to do justice.