CHET RAM Vs. H P S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayer:-

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Board submits that the petitioner had not completed 240 days. It is also submitted that the disputed facts cannot be gone into in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been engaged for project and on completion of project only, the petitioner was duly dis-engaged. Some of the above contentions are seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that even if the petitioner had not completed 240 days, dis-engagement should only be on the basis of last come first go. Still further, it is submitted that in case there was subsequently work available, the petitioner should have been allowed to continue preferably to others. Third submission is that many juniors to the petitioner in Annexure A-1 list have since been re-engaged either pursuant to the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal or on account of re-consideration of the case by the Board itself.