SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Relevant facts are that respondent No.7, who was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was appointed by Gram Panchayat, 83 LNP (Jorkia), Padampur as a Pump Driver in the year 2010. The appointment was on contract basis. In February, 2015 elections to the Gram Panchayat took place. The new Sarpanch got passed a resolution recording therein that working of the respondent No.7 is not satisfactory. On 20th February, 2015 his employment on contract was terminated and the appellant was appointed as a Pump Driver. Impleading the appellant as respondent No.7 the writ petition was filed pleading malice. A counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, Chief Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Padampur in which it was pleaded that lot of complaints were received regarding irregularities committed by the writ petitioner and for said reasons his appointment on contract was cancelled.

(3.) Vide impugned order dated 20 th November, 2017 the learned Single Judge has held that the order of termination does not record any valid reasons and thus is bad in law. The learned Single Judge has concluded that it is thus a case of replacing a contractual employee by a contractual employee.