S. P. Goyal, J. - (1.) Petitioner, Dalip Singh, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order, Annexure P-10 terminating his services with immediate effect.
(2.) According to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner was employed as Ahlmad on April 15, 1945 and was working as Clerk of Court when on Sept. 27, 1976, he submitted an application through proper channel to the Chief Secretary to Government Punjab for his absorption in a department of the Government which was duly forwarded by the High Court. Simultaneously he submitted an application to the Punjab Mate Education Beard (hereinafter called the Board) respondent No. 1 for his appointment as Manager, Text Book Sales Depot who decided to appoint him as such on deputation for a period of one year. The High Court, however, declined to send the petitioner on deputation and wrote back to the Board that if it was prepared to absorb the petitioner permanently, he could be relieved. It is further alleged by the petitioner that on this reference, the Board decided to absorb him permanently and as an interim measure appointed him as Manager, Text Book Sales Depot, Bhatinda, on ad hoc basis, vide Annexure P-5. The petitioner vas retired by the High Court with effect from Dec. 1, 1976 and with effect from the same date, he was absorbed by the Board permanently as the Manager Text Book Sales Depot as is evident from letter, Annexure P-7, written by the Secretary of the Board to the District and Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, on March 10 1977 for securing the last Pay Certificate of the petitioner, i hereafter, another letter Annexure P-8 dated Aug. 5, 1977 was written by the Secretary of the aid to the Senior Sub Judge, Bhatinda, conveying that the words, 'absorbed permanently' had been written inadvertently in the letter dated March 10, 1977 and may be considered to have been terminated.
(3.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of order, Annexure P-10, solely on the ground that he having been made permanent, his services could not be terminated treating him as an ad hoc employee In support of his contention that he had been permanently absorbed, reliance was placed on letter, Annexure P-7, noticed above. No doubt in this letter which is signed by the Assistant Secretary it is mentioned that the petitioner had been absorbed permanently in the service of the Board but the words, 'absorbed permanently' had been entered inadvertently as stated in the next letter, Annexure P-8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the order once having been passed absorbing the petitioner permanently, he could not later on be treated as an ad hoc employee. The contention is wholly misconceived because according to the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 no order by the competent authority absorbing the petitioner permanently in the service of the Board was ever passed. As the learned counsel for the petitioner was not satisfied with this averment in the written statement, I directed the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 to produce the original file which was duly produced on the date of the hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner was allowed to go through that file to point out if any order by the competent authority had been passed to absorb the petitioner permanently in the service of the Board but he failed to do so. It is, therefore, evident that the competent authority had in this case never passed any order appointing the petitioner as the Manager on permanent basis. He cannot, therefore, claim a right to the said post simply on the basis of letter, Annexure P-7, written by the Assistant Secretary who admittedly was not competent authority to pass any order respecting the appointment of the petitioner.;