PRADEEP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order dated August 29, 1985 passed by the learned singal Judge, by which he dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.

(2.) WE many briefly state the facts which have given rise to this appeal. The petitioner -appellant was appointed by means of order Anx. 3 dated May 1, 1985. It was, amongst others, mentioned that he is being appointed temporary (sic) period of six months. By the same order, besides the petitioner appellant, 19 more persons were appointed. Subsequently, it appears that by means of Anx. 4 dated August 17, 1985, the appointment order which was issued in favour of the petitioner -appellant was cancelled and his services were terminated under Rule 23 -A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules'). It is further mentioned therein that he is being given notice from August 17, 1985 and his services shall stand terminated from September 17, 1965. The petitioner -appellant filed a writ petition in this Court on August 26, 1985 seeking to quash the order Anx. 4 dated August 17, 1985. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner -appellant submitted Anx. 1 dated July 13, 1981; Anx. 2 dated April 30, 1985 Annx. 3 dated May 1, 1985 and Anx. 4 dated August 17, 1985. It may be mentioned that Anx. 1 dated July 13, 1981 is a Circular issued by the State Government and that was for the purpose of making selection of Class IV Servants. A Committee was constituted consisting of Regional Deputy Director, District Ayurvedic Officer and Senior Medical Officer. Annexure 2 is the copy of the letter dated April 30, 1985 for the purpose of selecting Ward Boy. The learned single Judge, by his order dated August 29,1985, after considering the contentions that were raised before him, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal as aforesaid.

(3.) IT appears from the impugned order that the learned single Judge held that the appointment of the petitioner appellant was purely on temporary basis for a period of six months and, therefore, his services when sought to be terminated by giving one month's notice under Rule 23 -A of the Rules, is legal and there cannot be said to be any illegality committed by issuing the termination order. He repelled the contention that in this case, the order should have been a speaking one or that it was necessary to have afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner -appellant before passing the order under Rule 23 -A of the Rules.