V.K. Bali, J. - (1.) Petitioner Jaswinder Singh seeks through the present petition filed by him under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a writ of certiorari so as to quash order Annexure P4 vide which his terms of appointment were charged and he was made a daily wage worker with immediate effect.
(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed on 1st of January, 1990, as Oilman on temporary work charge (regular) basis. Vide impugned order Annexure P-4 dated 3rd of March, 1992, he was re-employed on daily-wage basis. Mr. Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued only one point and that is that the terms of appointment of the petitioner could not be changed without giving him a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The prayer in the petition has been opposed and it is pleaded in the written statement that a vacancy had arisen for the post of Oilman, work charge, on the promotion of one oilman as boilerman. Thereupon the Hospital Engineer moved the case of the petitioner for appointment as oilman against the vacancy created on account of promotion of one oilman as boilerman. The sanction of the boilerman was only for five posts against which six persons senior to the petitioner are in position. For want of availability of one post of boilerman, the junior most namely the petitioner, had to be reverted as oilman. Consequently the petitioner who is the junior most became surplus. The administration of PGI in the circumstances had two options (i) either to terminate the services of the petitioner by giving him one month's notice or (ii) allow him to continue as a daily wage worker from where he was picked up.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that order Annexure P-4 which unilaterally alters the terms of appointment of the petitioner as evidenced through Annexure P-3 is illegal and requires to be set aside. However, at his stage Mr. Arora perhaps sensing that after hearing the petitioner, the respondent may dispense with his services wishes that instead of setting aside the impugned order, the administration of the PGI may be asked at least to accommodate the petitioner on the post of oilman on work charge (regular) basis. Mr. Arun Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent PGI Chandigarh, states that the case of the petitioner would be considered for the post of Oilman on work charge (regular) basis as and when the post on such basis arises. However, the petitioner shall continue on the post till such time is regular vacancy arises.;