SHIV CHARAN MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Driver with the respondents since 1st February, 2009. He has preferred this writ petition as suddenly without any basis and without any reasons his services have been dispensed with and another person has been appointed in his place to work as a driver with further direction to the petitioner to handover the charge to the new incumbent Laluram Meena by the impugned order dated 5.5.2015.

(2.) It is stated that no reasons have been assigned while relieving him of his duties. He had been working for almost six years with the respondents and there had not been any occasion of any delinquency on his part during his tenure. It is further stated that the regular recruitment process for the post of drivers has not been initiated and the petitioner who was working on adhoc basis with the respondents, could not have been replaced by another person on adhoc basis. A legal notice was also served upon the respondents by the petitioner. Thereafter, he has approached this Court. Notices were issued in the present petition. Reply has been filed. From the perusal of the reply, it is seen that no reasons have come forward to replace the petitioner by another contractual/adhoc person. It is also admitted position that regular selections for the post of drivers has not been proceeded further by the respondents.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is clearly illegal, unjustified and arbitrary. One set of contractual employees/adhoc employees could not have been replaced by another set of contractual/adhoc employees in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Md. Abdul Kadir & Anr v. Director General of Police, Assam (2009) 6 SCC 611. This Court has also laid down this principle in several judgments which need not to be quoted.