MAGNA RAM CHUOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that order of termination of his services dated 10.9.81 (Annex. G) be declared null and void and that he be declared to be in Government service and allowed all benefits as if his services were not terminated. He has further prayed that the respondents be also directed to pass necessary orders to regularise the period of his suspension.

(2.) THE facts of this case are not such in dispute. The petitioner, who is a Post Graduate and an orthopedically handicapped person, made an application to the Social Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan for a suitable Job. The Social Welfare Department vide their letter dated 23.1.81 (Annex. A) while transmitting the said application requested the Commissioner, Transport (respondent No.3 to give appointment to the petitioner in the reserved 2% quota for the physically handicapped persons drawing the attention to the provisions of the Rajasthan Employment to Handicapped Persons Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1976'). Thereupon, respondent No. 3 by his order dated 12.2.81 (Annex. B) appointed the petitioner as LDC on ad hoc and temporary basis for a period of six month or till a selected candidate was available from the RPSC, which ever was earlier. In the appointment letter it was also mentioned that the petitioner was a physically handicapped person and a copy thereof was also sent to the Social Welfare Department. The petitioner was ordered to join his duties in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur, which he Joined on 20 2.81. Prior to the said appointment, the petitioner was facing a criminal charge under Section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code along with other persons in the court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. It appears that on 22.5.81, the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 304 Part -II read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced him to four year's R.I. The petitioner was, therefore, arrested on 22.5.81 and he remained in custody for more than 48 hours and as such respondent No.3 by his order dated 27.5.81 (Annex. C) placed him under suspension under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (briefly the 'Rules, 1958'). The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the Rajasthan High Court, which was admitted and his application for suspension of the sentence was accepted and his sentence was suspended pending the hearing of the appeal. The petitioner, therefore, approached the respondent No.3, who by his order dated 4.6.81 (Annex. D), keeping in view the suspension of sentence granted by this Court, reinstated him in service and mentioned in the said order that the question of treating the suspension period will be decided after the final decision of the criminal appeal by the Rajasthan High Court or on completion of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner, who was directed to await further posting orders, was posted against a vacant post in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Kota vide order dated 4.8.81 (Annex. E). The petitioner being a physically handicapped person was also considered eligible for the grant of vehicle allowance at the rate of 10% of his pay or Rs. 50/ - which ever was less w.e.f. 23.5.81 by the respondent No.3 vide his order dated 4.9.81 (Annex. F). The petitioner continued to work at Kota but the respondent No.3 by his order dated 10.9.81 (Annex. G) extended petitioner's services till 10.9.81 and simultaneously terminated his services by the same order. The petitioner, therefore, submitted representations dated 22.9.81 and 14.12.81 (Annex. H and I) to the Transport Minister (respondent No. 2) and also sent representation dated 11.1.82 (Annex. J) to respondent No.3. Ultimately, the Dy. Transport Commissioner, by his letter dated 5.6.82 (Annex. L) informed the petitioner that he was appointed as LDC on ad hoc and temporary basis for a period of six months and that thereafter his services were extended upto 10.9.81 only, hence it was not possible to extend his services beyond that date.

(3.) THE respondents in their counter have opposed this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on ad hac basis for a period of six months or till the selected candidate from the RPSC was made available; that the petitioner at the time of submitting his application for appointment did not disclose that he was facing a criminal trial for the charges under Section 302 IPC and as such he had suppressed material facts. It has been asserted that petitioner's appointment was not made against the reserved quota of the physically handicapped persons; that since the petitioner remained in Police custody for more than 48 hours since 2 -5 -81, after his conviction for offence under Section 304 Part -II IPC, he was suspended under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1958 and that when his sentence was suspended, he was reinstanted. They have pleaded that the service of the petitioner was not extended beyond six months by the Commissioner, Transport (Respondent No.3) and, therefore, it was the duty of the R.T.O. Kota to have intimated him, but by mistake he did not do so and that when this fact came to the notice of the Commissioner, Transport the petitioner's service were extended upto 10.9.81 and terminated on the same day vide Annexure -G. They have further pleaded that the petitioner was appointed temporarily and on ad hoc basis, that the respondents did not think it proper to extend his services and that it is wrong to allege that his service word terminated because of his conviction in the criminal case. As regards, Shri B.P. Kasotia, it has been asserted that he was a scheduled caste candidate and was appointed in reserved quota and, therefore, the petitioner does not stand on the same footing because he belongs to a different class and that as such there was no violation of Articles 14, 16 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It has been averred that 2% reserved quota for the physically handicapped persons strictly applied for employees.