BIKRAM DEV Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the order; of termination of service of the petitioner from the post of Line Superintendent.

(2.) In response to the requisitions sent to the Employment Exchanges Nabha, Samana and Rajpura by the Chief Electrical Inspector for appointment against five leave vacancies of Line Superintendents, the names of the petitioner and one Vinod Kumar were sponsored, on the basis of the qualifications possessed by them. They were appointed as Line Superintendents on temporary basis for a period of 89 days. Vinod Kumar was appointed in February 1993 whereas the petitioner was appointed on 17.3.1993. The tenure of the petitioner's appointment was extended by orders dated 23.6.1993, 25.11.1993 and 21.2.1994. In June, 1994 Ram Rattan, who was working as Assistant Electrical Inspector was reverted to the post of Line Superintendent by the competent authority. In order to make room for Ram Rattan the service of the petitioner was terminated vide Annexure P-6 dated 7.6.1994, once again the petitioner was given an appointment on the post of Line Superintendent vide Annexure P-7 dated 23.6.1994. He was again relieved on 12.9.1994 after the completion of the period of his appointment.

(3.) First contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not appointed against the leave vacancy Nor there was a condition in the appointment order that his service would stand terminated on the availability of a regular hand and, therefore, the impugned order should be declared as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The second contention of the learned counsel is that the respondents have not come to in Court with clean hands inasmuch as the plea of termination of service of the petitioner in order to accommodate Ram Rattan has also been raised in the written statement filed by them in the civil suit of Vinod Kumar which is pending in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Patiala and that services of two persons could not have been terminated to accommodate Rani Rattan. The learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, submitted that appointment of the petitioner was purely adhoc and fortuitous and no right came to vest in him to hold the posts and. therefore, the petitioner had to be removed in order to make room for Ram Rattan, who was officiating as Assistant Electrical Inspector. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, further pointed out that Vinod Kumar was removed in order to make room for another regular incumbent namely Luxmi Kant and by mistake name of Ram Rattan has been mentioned in the written statement filed on behalf of the department in the civil suit of Vinod Kumar.