D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Time Keeper in the Industries Department, Haryana, on adhoc basis vide order dated 18.4.1978. Annexure P. I. He continued to hold this post till 31.12.1985 when his services were terminated by the Director of Industries, Haryana, respondent No. 2 vide order of even date Annexure P. 2. He alleges that his services have been so terminated at the instance of respondent No. 4, who was inimical towards him. He was relieved from duty on 15.1.1986 by respondent No. 4 vide relieving order of the said date Annexure P.3. He contends that his record of service throughout was satisfactory and there was nothing adverse to him. According to the policy decision of the Haryana Government dated 19.1.1984 Annexure P. 4, it was incumbent on respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have considered the petitioner for regular appointment as he had completed two years of adhoc service on 15.9.1982 and also fulfilled the other conditions laid down therein. By not regularising his service, he has been discriminated against. He further states that as a faithful Government servant he submitted a complaint dated 25.9.1985 against respondent No. 4 to the Chief Minister, Haryana, and respondent No. 2 levelling very serious charges of corruption, embezzlement of Government funds and misuse of powers by him. As a result, respondent No. 4 became vindictive and secured' termination of his services from respondent No. 2.
(2.) Through his writ petition the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order Annexure P.2 and tor a direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to regularise his services with effect from 15.9.1982 in accordance with the instructions contained in Annexure P.4.
(3.) The petition has been opposed by the respondents and a written statement on their behalf has been filed by respondent No. 4. The fact that the petitioner was appointed as Time Keeper on adhoc basis vide order dated 18.4.1978 Annexure P.1 and he continued in service till 31.12.1985 without break has been admitted. It is however, stated that in the light of the instructions contained in Annexure P.4 the case for regularisation of his services with effect from 15.9.1982 was considered but the same was rejected as the petitioners record of service was unsatisfactory and he did not merit regularisation of adhoc service. The fact that the petitioner made a complaint against respondent No. 4 is admitted. It is, however, stated that the complaint was false and after due enquiry the same was filed.;