SAMPAT LAL Vs. RHC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed, seeking to challenge the order of learned Single Judge dated 07.09.1995, dismissing the petitioner's writ petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts are, that the petitioner was initially appointed on temporary basis vide order dated 05.06.1992, however, while working, a notification came to be issued, being dated 15.12.1994, advertising vacancies of LDC. In response thereto, the petitioner applied, and on being found eligible, he was allowed to appear in the written test, wherein he remained successful. Thereafter, the successful candidates were called for typing test, but in the typing test petitioner was declared unsuccessful, result whereof was declared on 28.02.1995. Consequently, the petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated 28.02.1995. With these facts, it is alleged by the petitioner, that State Government had issued a circular dated 21.05.1971, inter -alia providing, that SC/ST candidates, who qualified the written test, and could not qualify the typing test, should be given six months' time, to qualify the typing test. The copy of the circular is produced as Annex.5. It is contended, that in view of this circular, the dispensation of the services of the petitioner was illegal, and he should have been given appointment, and at the same time, should have been given six months' time to clear the typing test. Inter -alia, with this, it was prayed, that respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner as LDC with effect from 28.02.1995, give him six months time to qualify the typing test, and regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment, with all consequential benefits, so also quash the termination order dated 28.02.1995, and allow him other consequential reliefs.

(3.) REPLY to the writ petition was filed, contending inter -alia, that petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, and since he failed to qualify the typing test, his services were dispensed with. Regarding circular Annex.5, it was contended, that this circular does not apply to the services of Ministerial Staff in Subordinate Courts in Rajasthan, and hence it is of no help. Then, it is pleaded that the provisions of Rule 4(a) [sic. Rule 4(h)] of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Establishment Rules 1957, hereafter to be referred to as Rules of 57, excludes their applicability to High Court, and its Subordinate Courts, and since circular Annex.5 has been issued with reference to the Rules of 1957 only, it has no application, rather all the recruitments and services of the ministerial staff, in the subordinate courts in Rajasthan, are governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, hereafter to be referred to as Rules of 86, whereunder qualifying the typing test is necessary requirement, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.