MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.12.1994 vide Annexure P-5.

(2.) The petitioner registered his name with the Employment Exchange. On 29.2.1994 he was called for an interview for the post of Clerk-cum-Steno Typist (Punjabi) with District Food Supplies Controller, Bathinda, but he was not selected at the interview held on 4.3.1994. Again he was called for interview by the 4th respondent i.e. District Food & Supplies Controller, Bathinda and interview was held on 21.3.1994. The petitioner was given an appointment letter on 19.4.1994 and accordingly he joined his duty on 4.5.1994. The petitioner was allotted to the District Consumer Forum, Bathinda. Thereafter on 17.1.1995 he was served with a letter to termination dated 15.12.1994. The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order of termination of his services dated 15.12.1994. Annexure P-3 is the order of appointment of the petitioner as Clerk-cum-Steno Typist. In this order of appointment, it is clearly mentioned that the appointment is against a regular post, but it can be terminated at any moment and there is no promise of regular service. Annexure P-5 is the order of termination wherein it is mentioned as follows:-

(3.) In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, it is clearly stated that the post was filled up in the office of District Consumer Forum, Bathinda, and the work of the District Consumer Forum is of quasi judicial nature and the petitioner was required to know Stenography in English, but the petitioner does not know Stenography in English. Therefore, the services of the petitioner were not required in the District Consumer Forum and therefore his services were rightly terminated. It is also mentioned in the written statement that another person who has got the requisite qualifications namely Stenography in English has been recommended by the President, District Consumer Forum, Bathinda and therefore, he was appointed in the District Consumer Forum. When the services of the petitioner were no longer required as he did not possess the necessary qualifications namely Typing and Stenography in English, I do not find any thing wrong in terminating the services of the petitioner. It is clear from the letter of appointment, that the services of the petitioner are not regular and he has not been regularly appointed and it is also mentioned therein that his services can be terminated at any time. The order of termination clearly shows that the services of the petitioner are no longer required in the District Consumer Forum, Bathinda. There is no illegality in the impugned order of termination.