AJAY KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 8.5.1988, Annexure P-2, passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak.

(2.) The factual position in a nutshell is as under :-

(3.) Respondent No. 2 contested the claim of the petitioner and pleaded in the written statement that the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis and since it was a part time temporary appointment, his services were terminated vide letter dated 30.3.1991 with effect from 2.4.1991. The appointment of the petitioner on part time basis, as Library Attendant cannot be added towards 240 days of service and he has not been employed at any point of time for 240 days. The petitioner was appointed every time for a fixed term and was relieved on the expiry of the fixed term. The father of Sh. Satish Kumar was a Peon in the College. On his death, his son Satish Kumar was employed and his appointment was approved by the Government vide letter dated 15.7.1994. The vacancy on which Satish Kumar was appointed was created as a result of resignation of Library Attendant. There was no violation of the provisions of Section 25(3), 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. The petitioner was not entitled to any regular appointment.