- (1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the im pugned order dated 31-08-1999 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition), whereby the services of the petitioner are terminated. A mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to work on the post of junior clerk, held by him. Further mandamus has been sought command ing the respondents to regularly pay sal ary for the post held by the petitioner.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Brief facts of the case, as nar rated in the writ petition, are that in the year 1998, posts of junior clerks were created in various Government institu tions in District Nainital. An advertise ment is made for recruitment to the post of junior clerks. Pursuant to the adver tisement, the petitioner made an appli cation, for his appointment on the post of junior clerk. He was appointed as jun ior clerk in Government Inter College, Josyura, vide order dated 24-07-1998 (copy Annexure -1 to the writ petition ). He joined the duties in the same month on 31st of July 1998, with the said In stitution. It is alleged by the petitioner that he discharged his duties to the ut most satisfaction of the senior authori ties. It is stated in the writ petition that shockingly vide order dated 31-08-1999, the services of the petitioner were termi nated. The petitioner has alleged that similarly situated junior clerks are still working with various institutions, run by the State Government. It is further stated in the writ petition, that no irregu larity was committed in the appointment of the petitioner, as such, termination of his services is illegal and arbitrary. Respondents contested. the writ petition and a counter affidavit was filed on their behalf, in which it is stated that petitioner's appointment was made against the ban in the recruitment, im posed by the Government. It is further stated that no advertisement of vacancy was made in any daily newspaper. It is also alleged in the counter affidavit, that keeping in view the irregularities commit ted by the then Joint Director of Edu cation, he was placed under suspension. Defending the order of termination, passed against the petitioner, it is stated in the counter affidavit that his appoint ment was made in violation of the se lection procedure. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that services of the petitioner were purely temporary in na ture and were liable to be terminated at any time, by giving one months' notice or by making payment of one months' salary, in lieu thereof. Denying that other similarly situated persons were permitted to continue, it is stated that whenever appointments of such candi dates were brought to the knowledge of the Department, which were made against the ban imposed by the Govern ment and against the procedure of se lection, their services were terminated.
(3.) BEFORE further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here, that the ap pointment letter dated 24-07- 1998 (copy Annexure-1 to the writ petition) itself in dicates that the petitioner's appointment was temporary in nature and it was ex pressly provided in it, that his services were liable to be dispensed with at any time, after giving one month's notice or payment of one month's salary, in lieu thereof. The impugned order of termina tion is Annexure -3 to the writ petition, which shows that since the petitioner's appointment was made surreptitiously, against the ban imposed by the Govern ment and without due selection process, as such, after giving a show cause no tice dated 23-04-1999, and considering the reply received from the petitioner, his services were terminated. The order of termination does not cast stigma on the petitioner. If at all something is alleged, it is against the appointing authority, and not on the employee appointed. As such, considering that no stigma was casted on the conduct of the petitioner, and since, nature of his services was temporary, the same was liable to be dis pensed with at any time without assign ing any reason, by giving him one months' salary or on payment of one months' salary, in lieu thereof, it can not be said that the impugned order (copy Annexure -3 to the petition) was passed in violation of any law. Nor can it be said to be arbitrary or in violation of any service rules.;