MANU MAL BHIL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Manumal, was employed as a temporary Patwari in Tehsil Chohtan of District Barmer in the State of Raj. by the order dated April 10,1970 passed by the Collector, Barmer. He joined his duties as a Patwari on April 16, 1970 and continued to serve in that capacity until November 21, 1973. THE service of the petitioner was terminated by the order of the Collector, Barmer dated November 14, 1973 on the ground that due to reversion of persons from the posts of Land Record Inspectors no vacant post of Patwari remained and as such the service of the junior most temporary Patwari including the petitioner was terminated. THE order was communicated to the petitioner on November 20, 1973 and he was relieved in the fore-noon of November 21,1973.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that termination of his service by the order of the Collector, Barmer dated November 14, 1973 was void and ineffective as the provisions of rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were not complied with, inasmuch as neither one month's notice was given to the petitioner before terminating his service nor one month's pay in lieu of notice was given to him along with the intimation regarding the termination of his service.

(3.) IN Manoharlal Dave vs. State of Rajasthan (1) a learned Judge of this Court held that where there was a prior agreement between the parties that the service of the employee shall be terminated without notice there was no noncompliance of the provisions of Rule 23-A (1) if the employment of the emyloyee is terminated with immediate effect without prior notice on the fulfilment of the specified condition. When the condition is contained in the letter of appointment of the Government servant and the person joins the employment offered to him, then the conduct of such person amounts to acceptance of the condition imposed upon him in the letter of appointment.