MOHAR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. Ganesh Meena, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sanjay Mehla for the respondents. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.2.2005 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4137/2004 instituted by the appellant/writ petitioner, thereby dismissing the same.

(2.) THE appellant's/writ petitioner's pleaded case in short is that on his selection, he was appointed as Para Teacher on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1200/ - per month in terms of the Notification No. F.139(5) Gravip/Shiksha/99/723 dated 23.4.1999. According to him, he was selected in the Village Gram Sabha meeting of Gram Panchayat Birol under Panchayat Samiti, Nawalgarh held on 1.5.1999. He was eventually posted in that capacity at Rajiv Gandhi Swarna Jayanti Pathshala at Gunana Johar, Ward No. 5, Birol. The appellant/writ petitioner alleged that at the relevant time, one Shri Jai Singh Choudhary was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Birol, who desired his wife Smt. Nirmala Devi, respondent No. 4 to be selected as Para Teacher of the said school and with that design, he interpolated the records of gram sabha and made her stake a claim for such appointment, whereafter an enquiry followed. The appellant/writ petitioner has stated that the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nawalgarh in his preliminary enquiry report dated 25.6.1999 clearly indicated that the respondent No. 4 was not present in the gram sabha meeting held on 1.5.1999, and thus, in terms of the notification dated 23.4.1999 laying down the norms for appointment as Para Teacher, she was not eligible to be appointed as such. Inspite thereof, the husband of respondent No. 4 continued with his efforts to oust the appellant/writ petitioner, and eventually, by order dated 8.6.2004 issued by the Office of the Gram Panchayat, Birol, Panchayat Samiti Nawalgarh, she (respondent No. 4) was appointed in his place. The appellant/writ petitioner however, has asserted that at no point of time, any order terminating his services was passed. He was also not paid remuneration for the services rendered by him. He thus approached this Court seeking annulment of the order dated 8.6.2004, and for a declaration that he was continuing in service. A direction for payment of his entitlements was also sought for. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has declined to interfere.

(3.) MR . Meena on the other hand, with reference to the letter dated 20.5.2004 (Annexure -9 to the writ petition), has urged by placing reliance on the order dated 5.3.2004 alluded to therein that the appointment of respondent No. 4 had followed after due enquiry and on a decision on the representation submitted by her pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2966/1999. In this regard, he also placed reliance on the order dated 26.8.2002 rendered in the aforementioned writ proceeding.