GOPI LAL TELI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Single Judge at the time of admission of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3011/90 Gopi Lal Teli v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , after hearing the counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of alternative remedy, referred the following question for determination by a Larger Bench of more than three Judges:

(2.) BEFORE we proceed to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we think it proper to narrate the facts of the aforesaid Writ Petition giving rise to the reference in question.

(3.) INTEGRATED Guineaworm Eradication Project is apart of Sanitation Water and Community Health Project of the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner passed B. Com. Examination in 1st Division in 1980 from Udaipur University. He was born on 2nd April, 1957 and belongs to backward community (Teli ). He was appointed as L. D. C. in Sanitation Water and Community Health Project at Salumbar purely on ad hoc basis for a period of two months on the fixed salary of Rs. 600/-per month vide order dated March 28, 1988. There was specific stipulation in the order of appointment that the services of the petitioner shall stand automatically terminated on expiry of period of two months. Before the expiry of two months, the services of the petitioner were extended with effect from May 28, 1988 to June 30, 1988 on the same terms and conditions, vide order dated May, 27, 1988. The extended period by order dated May 27, 1988 elapsed on June 30, 1988 but the petitioner was allowed to continue in service and by order dated July 7, 1988 the services of the petitioner were further extended from July 1, 1988 to August 31, 1988. Similarly, although the period fixed by the aforesaid order had elapsed on August 31, 1988, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service and later on , by order dated September 5, 1988 his services were again extended from September 1, 1988 to October 31, 1988. From the facts, it would be evident that the petitioner worked without any order from September 1, 1988 to September 4, 1988. It was further alleged that the services of the petitioner were extended from November 1, 1988 to December 31, 1988 by order dated November 1, 1988 for a period of two months. Here again, although period fixed by the aforesaid order had elapsed on December 31, 1988 the petitioner was continued in service and it was later on that by an order dated January 4, 1989 the services of the petitioner were extended from January 1, 1989 to February 28, 1989. The period extended by order dated January 4, 1989 also expired on February 28, 1989, but the petitioner was allowed to work and subsequently, by order dated March 18, 1989 further extension was given to him with effect from March 1, 1989 to March 24, 1989 and therefore, the petitioner again worked without an order from March 1, 1989 to March 17, 1989. It appears that the Project at Salumbar was closed and the entire staff was shifted to Rajsamand, where the project was newly started. Almost all the staff, light from the Project Officer to Class IV were shifted to Rajsamand and in pursuance of this the Project Officer again appointed the petitioner with effect from March 25, 1989 by order dated March 31, 1989. This appointment was for a period commencing from March 25, 1989 till May 31, 1989. Here again the petitioner worked without any order from March 25, 1989 to March 30, 1989. The services of the petitioner were further extended up to 31st July, 1989 by order dated 30th June, 1989. The said period again, though elapsed on May 31, 1989, yet the petitioner was allowed to continue in service and vide order dated June 30, 1989 his services were extended from June 1, 1989 to July 31, 1989. The extended term though expired on July 31, 1989, yet the petitioner was allowed to continue in service without any order up to August 29, 1989. It appears that the extended period again expired and the petitioner was again allowed to work without any order from October 1, 1989 to October 17, 1989 and the services were again extended from October 1, 1989 to November 30, 1989. The petitioner again worked without any order from December 1, 1989 to December 15, 1989. However his services were again extended from December 1, 1989 to February 28, 1990 by order dated December 16, 1989. The extended period again expired and he was allowed to work without any order from March 1, 1990 to March 4, 1990. The services of the petitioner were again extended from May 1, 1990 to June 30, 1990.