RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to quash the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Mill Wright Mechanical Instructor and also to quash the order of termination of service of the petitioner with a direction for consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He was appointed as adhoc Mill Wright Mechanical Instructor by the Director of Industrial Training and Vocational Education vide order Annexure P.3 dated 9.3.1994. Before this appointment, the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (for short the Board) had advertised two posts of Mill Wright Mechanical Instructor for Industrial Training Institutes. The petitioner was one of the competitors for selection and appointment against one of the two advertised posts which was reserved for ex-servicemen. In the selection made by the Board, respondent No. 4 was selected for appointment against the post reserved for ex-serviceman. On the recommendation made by the Board,, the respondent No.4 came to be appointed as Mill Wright Instructor vide order Annexure P.7 dated 7.9.1995. At the same time, the respondent No.2 ordered the termination of the service of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 on the ground that the said respondent cannot be treated as a dependent of ex-serviceman in terms of instructions contained in Annexure P.S because his father Shri Chander Prakash Gupta was working as a Machinist Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute, Ambala City. The petitioners contention is that if the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 is found to be illegal, the direction given by the respondent No.2 for termination of his i.e. petitioners service will automatically be rendered illegal. Another ground on which the petitioner has challenged the termination of his service is that the rule of last come first go has not been followed, inasmuch as, respondent No.5, who is junior to him in the category of adhoc Mill Wright Mechanical Instructors, has been retained in service while terminating his service. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that posts of Mill Wright Mechanical Instructions are lying vacant and, therefore, the respondent No.2 should have continued him in service instead of issuing a direction for termination of his service.