- (1.) This special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27 November 2013. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution and has set aside an order of termination dated 9 May 2003.
(2.) The respondent was initially appointed in pursuance of an advertisement which was issued by the appellants on 1 March 2000 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition). The advertisement was issued by the Principal of the appellants for appointment on a temporary post, inter alia, of a Hindi Teacher. The initial appointment on 30 June 2000 was for a period from 1 July 2000 to 30 September 2000 on a consolidated remuneration. The letter of appointment stated that the services of the respondent were purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition filed by the respondent, he specifically averred that he was originally appointed on an ad hoc basis on the post of Hindi Master in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. The Selection Committee, which was constituted in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, consisted of the Principal, Officiating Head Master and the two teachers in Chemistry and History respectively, this being the averment in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. The services of the respondent were extended from time to time until eventually they were terminated by order dated 9 May 2003. The respondent challenged the order of termination by instituting the writ proceedings before this Court. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 24 July 2003. A special appeal against the interim order was dismissed.
(3.) By the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, which is now impugned in appeal, it has been held that the respondent was appointed on an ad hoc basis on 30 June 2000. However, the view of the learned Single Judge is that as per the terms of the advertisement, the appointment was to be made against a regular vacancy. The learned Single Judge held that though the respondent had been engaged in 2000, he is still continuing in service; no material has been brought on the record to establish a misconduct or inefficiency on his part; and the termination of the services of the respondent was held to be unfair on the ground that the appointment was made against a regular vacancy on the post of Hindi Teacher though he was given an ad hoc/contractual appointment.;