SHAMBHOO KUMAR Vs. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Dr. D.S. CHAUHAN, J. dated July 27, 1998 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 144/1998. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. The writ petition was filed praying for a direction that the respondents may be directed to continue the petitioner in service in pursuance to his appointment order dated August 22, 1996 and he be treated continued in service as if his services are never brought to an end.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows: In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents the appellant was appointed to the post of L.D.C. as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Subordinate Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. Alongwith the appellant 17 other L.D.Cs. were appointed initially for a period of 4 months and, thereafter, extension was made vide Annexure-2 dated May 20, 1997 whereby the services of the appellant were also extended upto December 31, 1997 upon terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure-1. According to the appellant, all the L.D.Cs who were appointed alongwith him were allowed extension but the appellant was not allowed extension after December 31, 1997. The appellant was given to understand that the vacancies were substantive and appointments were given against the substantive vacancies and, that, a panel was prepared for a period of one year. However, the services of the appellant were terminated without following due process of law and the period of his extension was not extended. No opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before refusing him to come on duty though even as per the conditions of the appointment order the appellants services could not have been brought to an end inasmuch as neither any surplus employee has been made available to the respondents nor the work, conduct and behaviour etc. of the appellant was unsatisfactory. In such circumstances the services could not have been brought to an end. Aggrieved with the order of termination of services the appellant preferred a writ petition. Alongwith the writ petition, the appellant filed Annexures-1 to 7.

(3.) A reply was filed on behalf of the respondents. In the reply, it is stated as follows: