KAILASH THAKUR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the orders incorporated in Annexures 1, 2 and 4 be quashed by a writ of certiorari. It is stated in the application that the petitioner had been appointed as a lower division clerk in Circle Office, Jama in the Sub-division of Dumba in the district of Santal Parganas on the 19th September, 1960 and in due course, he was transferred as such to C. D. Block Circle Office Nala, Jamtara. According to the petitioner, he was working satisfactorily until the 7th November, 1960, when he suffered from haemorrhage due to piles and he applied for casual leave on medical ground. It is stated that the petitioner's condition became so precarious that he had to set the leave extended. Even then his condition did not improve. Then he applied for further extension of leave till the 15th December. 1960 giving his full address on his application. It is stated that his condition deteriorated in his village home and he sent application for extension of leave until sometime in February, 1907, According to the petitioner, he obtained a certificate of fitness from his doctor and he went to resume his duties on the 26th February, 1967, when he came to know that his services had been terminated with effect from the 7th November, 1966. The petitioner's grievance in the writ application is that no orders had been passed on his leave application and still his services were dispensed with. It is stated that from the office record maintained in the Establishment Department the petitioner came to know that the order for bis removal from service had been passed on the 26th November 196G and a letter to that effect had been sent giving a wrong address. Then, it is stated, that, the petitioner filed a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, but the same was rejected by him on the 10th April, 1967. A copy of this order has been incorporated in Annexure The order on appeal, dated the 7th February. 1908 has been incorporated in Annexure 2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the Board of Revenue, and the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, dated the 8th November, 1968 is incorporated in Annexure 4. In those circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the annexures, mentioned above, contending that the orders were illegal, arbitrary and void.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that by Annexure 1 a serious stigma has been made against the character of the petitioner and, therefore, the order is fit to be set aside, as the petitioner had not opportunity to show that the defects mentioned in Annexure 1 were erroneous. It is, however, difficult to accede to this contention as from the statements of fact made above, it appears that the petitioner had filed a representation to the Deputy Commissioner and by Annexure 1 the representation had been rejected. There is no material on record to indicate that the original order of removal of the petitioner had contained any stigma, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegations. No copy of the petitioner's representation to the "Deputy Commissioner has been supplied to the court and if by Annexure 1 the Representation had been answered, the petitioner cannot make any grievance out of it. It appears from the orders incorporated in Annexures 2 and 4 that the petitioner was holding a temporary appointment and that his services had been terminated as per terms of his temporary appointment. This was so mentioned by the Commissioner in his order (Annexure 2) and this was repeated by the Additional Member of the Board of Revenue in Annexure 4. The petitioner has not pro--duced the terms on which he was appointed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was serving the Department since the date of his joining in 1960 and, therefore, his post had become a quasi-permanent post. No rule, law or any direction has been shown to the court for a conclusion that by merely holding his post for a number of years the petitioner had attained the status of a quasi-permanent holder of the post in spite of the fact that his initial appointment was a temporary one, as mentioned in Annexures 2 and 4. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that any ground has been made out on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the orders incorporated in Annexures 2 and 4. It may be mentioned that the Additional Member of the Board of Revenue has mentioned in Annexure 4 that the Deputy Commissioner may, however, consider the petitioner's case, along with others, in future vacancies if the petitioner is eligible and found suitable for the same. Thus it is clear that the authorities in question are not unmindful of the fact that the petitioner may be re-employed in a suitable vacancy if he is found eligible and suitable. It is for the petitioner to take further steps before his employer to obtain relief as per directions of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue.

(3.) No grounds have been made out for quashing the impugned orders by any writ. In the circumstances, the writ application fails and it is dismissed, but without costs.