LAWS(RAJ)-2001-3-29

OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On March 20, 2001
OM PRAKASH SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN persuance of the advertisement dated 15. 6. 98, the appellant-petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Teacher Gr. III by order dated 12. 10. 98 (Annex. 2 to the petition) but he was not given actual appointment. He, therefore, earlier filed writ petition No. 4188/98 which was disposed of by our learned Brother Dr. Chauhan, J. on 14. 1. 99 by a brief order. As per the order, the petitioner approached the respondents for giving him posting order but the same was not done, therefore, contempt petition, No. 67/99 was filed. However, during the pendency of the contempt petition he was allowed to resume duty by the respondent No. 3 by order dated 20. 3. 99 (Annex. 7 to the writ petition), therefore, the contempt petition was disposed of.

(2.) SINCE then i. e. 20. 3. 99, he served as Teacher Gr. III. However, after lapse of period about 11 months, the petitioner was served with notice dated 17. 2. 2000 (Annex. 8) calling upon him to show cause within a week as to why his services should not be terminated. He replied to same on 24. 2. 2000 (Annex. 9) and without waiting for any order, rushed to this Court by way of writ petition, which he filed on 13. 3. 2000. It is prayed that the impugned notice dated 17. 2. 2000 (Annex. 8 to the writ petition) be quashed and any consequential orders passed by the respondents also be quashed and his services may not be terminated. On being served the respondents filed detailed reply affidavit dated 4. 4. 2000 alongwith the documents and the termination order dated 7. 3. 2000 (Annex. R2/3) terminating the services of the petitioner.

(3.) THEREFORE, Clause 18 is rightly inserted in the Circular dated 10. 6. 98. The services of the petitioner were terminated after giving due opportunity to the appellant and after considering his detailed reply, the learned Single Judge after considering several judgments of this court, was of the opinion that the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated, therefore, dismissed the writ petition.