NARENDER SINGH Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Draftsman (Civil) vide order dated November 28, 1995. A copy of this Order has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. This appointment was made "on work-charge basis for a period not exceeding six months on a specific contract or till regular selection is made whichever is earlier." On April 16, 1996, the posts were advertised. The eligible candidates along with the petitioner were called for interview. The petitioner had appeared in the interview held on February 7, 1997. On February 10, 1997, the result of the selection was finalised and declared. The selected candidates were appointed by order dated February 14, 1997. Vide a separate order of February 12, 1997, the petitioner was relieved of his duties. The petitioner alleges that he had been duly selected by a regularly constituted Selection Committee prior to his appointment and that the action of the respondents in terminating his services is wholly illegal.

(2.) The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) On November 26, 1997, Mr. Suresh Monga, learned counsel for the petitioner, had stated before the Bench that the petitioner had been duly selected in response to the advertisement for appointment to the post of Draftsman. In view of the categorical statement made by the learned counsel as also the fact that in paragraph 6 of the writ petition it had been stated by the petitioner that he was "selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee," we had directed that learned counsel for respondent No. 1 viz the Kurukshetra University to produce the original record.