ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein who had been appointed by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bayana, Bharatpur by order dated 30.6.89 as Class IV employee and was directed to continue till a regularly selected candidate is available, has challenged the order of his termination dated 21.12.89 which is an office order issued by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bayana which was not even served on the petitioner. By the aforesaid office order, the appointment of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect on the ground that his appointment had been made by the Panchayat Samiti, vide order dated 30.6.1989 merely on daily wages due to which it has come to an end. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the same, challenged it before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending therein that the State Government vide its circular dated 16.12.1988 sanctioned one post of Lower Division Clerk in each Panchayat Samiti under the Rural Land-less Employment Guarantee Programme for the period 1.1.89 to 28.2.89 and the regular pay scale for such appointment were also sanctioned.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that when he came to know about the creation of such a post of LDC in each Panchayat Samiti, he being a graduate applied for the said post and vide order dated 9.1.89 he was appointed as LDC on daily wages. The said appointment order, however, indicated that the same would come to an end on 28th February, 89. The further case of the petitioner is that in the month of June, 1989, the post of Class IV employee had also been sanctioned in the Panchayat Samiti and since he had been suffering the agony of unemployment, he submitted an application even for the Class IV post even though he is a graduate. Since the petitioner's work as LDC was to the satisfaction of his superiors he was given the appointment on Class IV post by the Block Development officer vide order dated 30.6.89 in the pay scale of Rs. 700-10-850-15- 865 alongwith the admissible aiiowances. It may be noted herein that although in the said order of appointment, it was referred that the petitioner has been appointed on daily wages, it has further been categoricaliy stated that the petitioners appointment on the post of Class IV Grd. is made in the regular scale of pay alongwith the deamess allowances (D.A.) from 1.7.89 on temporary basis, but an addition in handwriting 'daily wages' in the typed copy of the order has been added. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is an interpolation made subsequently merely to suit the case of the respondents. It has however been accepted that the appointment order clearly indicated that the services of the petitioner shall be terminated any time if a regularly selected candidate is available. Therefore, the whole emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioner on the point that since the petitioner was appointed tiil the time any regularly selected candidate is available, his services should not be discontinued.

(3.) The only question therefore which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner should be allowed to continue on the post of Class IV until regular selection for such post are made.