MOTILAL KOLI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders dt. 16. 3. 1985 and 21. 3. 1985, both of which relate to the termination of his service.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he is a member of Scheduled Castes. He passed 8th Class examination in the year 1969. His date of birth is 5. 7. 1954. He was appointed as Sub-Nakedar in Municipal Board, Khairthal by an order dated 10. 11. 1982 issued by the Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Khairthal. Term of the service of the petitioner was extended on the basis of internal correspondence between the functionaries of Municipal Board, Khairthal and the Directorate of Local Bodies. Alongwith the petitioner, term of appointment of S/shri Vikram Singh and Raghuvir Prasad was also extended. THE Deputy Secretary to the Government, Local Self Government Department wrote a letter dated 16. 3. 1985 in which he noted that appointment of the petitioner as Sub-Nakedar was made without calling his name from the Employment Exchange and therefore, it was irregular. He directed the Executive Officer to terminate the service of the petitioner by giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. THE Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Khairthal issued order dated 21. 3. 1985 and terminated the petitioner's service with immediate effect by giving one month's notice pay. THE government had issued a circular No. Estt. (S) F. 16 (1) DLB/68/7413-7554 dated 1. 4. 1969 whereby it was made clear that it was not necessary for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to have their names registered with the Employment Exchange and they can be appointed against reserved vacancies without registration of their names with the Employment Exchange. In terms of this circular it was not necessary for the petitioner to get his name registered with the Employment Exchange.

(3.) I find merit in the submission of Shri Goyal. The government order dated 1. 4. 1969 clearly dispenses with the requirement of registration with the Employment Exchange in the case of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is not the case of the respondent No. 4 that the petitioner was appointed against the general vacancy. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner was not registered with the Employment Exchange prior to his appointment cannot be made basis for declaring the appointment of the petitioner to be irregular and the same cannot be made ground for termination of his service.