NEERAJ BALI Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to an advertisement dated 2nd July, 1987 issued by the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short the Board), the petitioner who is a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical) having secured 63.3% marks, employed in some private limited concern and drawing Rs. 1900.00 per month, applied for the post of Graduate Technical Apprentice (Electrical). It is pertinent to mention here, that in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, Annexure P-l, the Board amongst other categories, had invited applications from the eligible candidates for 50 posts of Graduate Technical Apprentices (Electrical), out of which 10 per cent posts were reserved for the members of the Backward Classes. The petitioner belongs to 'Swarnkar' community which has been declared as a Backward Class by the Chandigarh Administration. He also applied for the said post. In order to claim the concession of reservation of being a Backward Class, the petitioner submitted his Backward Class Certificate, duly issued by the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandigarh.

(2.) The petitioner was first issued on offer of appointment. Annexure P-2 and later an order of appointment, Annexure P-3, pursuant to which, he assumed bis duties in the respondent-Board, after being relieved of his earlier appointment, on May 5, 1988. Bat the petitioner had hardly put in one month service when his services were terminated by the Board vide letter dated 9th June, 1988, Annexure P-5, with immediate effect, in terms of condition 2 contained in his order of appointment, Annexure P-2.

(3.) The petitioner through this petition, has challenged his termination of service. The case of the petitioner is, that after the termination of his services the Board issued offers of appointment to ten other candidates whose position was much inferior than the petitioner in the merit list prepared by the Board for the purpose of selection. According to the petitioner, he was a meritorious candidate having 6th position in the list of general candidates and 1st position in the list of Backward Classes category ; and that his services could not have been terminated in an arbitrary manner, as the Board had no occasion to evaluate his work and conduct during a short span of only one month. The termination of services was, therefore, bad inasmuch as the candidates having less merit than the petitioner were retained in service. It was also argued that the services of the petitioner have been terminated simply on the ground that he did not belong to the State of Haryana as such he was not eligible for appointment in the respondent-Board. No opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the petitioner to explain his position and as such as, per the petitioner, his valuable right has been violated.