KAILASH DAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) According to the petitioner, it is clear from the order dated 1.6.2006 (Annex.P/2) that the post of LDC is a sanctioned post and the petitioner's service has been terminated by order dated 12.12.2009 on the ground that the financial sanction has not been granted for the post and consequential order was passed on 21.12.2009. I perused the order Annex.P/2 which was issued for all District Collectors and Project Officers of Banswara, Dungarpur, Karauli, Jhalawar, Sirohi and Udaipur, whereas per the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 10.10.2008 (Annex.P/5), it is clear that the Project Officer of Barmer clearly stated that the petitioner is being given appointment on the post of LDC against the post of Computer Operator on the plea that in other districts, there are sanctioned posts of LDC. From the language of the said order itself, it is clear that the petitioner was given appointment against a different post and not against the post of LDC rather the order makes it clear that the post of LDC was not a sanctioned post for the area of Barmer and further the document Annex.P/2 is not related to the area where the petitioner was given appointment.

(3.) In view of the above, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.