AR.LAKSHMANAN, C.J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Dr. D.S. CHAUHAN, J. dated July 27, 1998 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 144/1998. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. The writ petition was filed praying for a direction that the respondents may be directed to continue the petitioner in service in pursuance to his appointment order dated August 22, 1996 and he be treated continued in service as if his services are never brought to an end.
(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows: In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents the appellant was appointed to the post of L.D.C. as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Subordinate Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. Alongwith the appellant 17 other L.D.Cs. were appointed initially for a period of 4 months and, thereafter, extension was made vide Annexure-2 dated May 20, 1997 whereby the services of the appellant were also extended upto December 31, 1997 upon terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure-1. According to the appellant, all the L.D.Cs who were appointed alongwith him were allowed extension but the appellant was not allowed extension after December 31, 1997. The appellant was given to understand that the vacancies were substantive and appointments were given against the substantive vacancies and, that, a panel was prepared for a period of one year. However, the services of the appellant were terminated without following due process of law and the period of his extension was not extended. No opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before refusing him to come on duty though even as per the conditions of the appointment order the appellants services could not have been brought to an end inasmuch as neither any surplus employee has been made available to the respondents nor the work, conduct and behaviour etc. of the appellant was unsatisfactory. In such circumstances the services could not have been brought to an end. Aggrieved with the order of termination of services the appellant preferred a writ petition. Alongwith the writ petition, the appellant filed Annexures-1 to 7.
(3.) A reply was filed on behalf of the respondents. In the reply, it is stated as follows: A. The appellant was given appointment on purely temporary basis and for a fixed period with certain conditions. B. The appointment order given to the appellant is placed on record and marked as Annexure-R/1. However, the appellant seems to have wilfully and knowingly omitted some words from condition No.3 of the appointment order with an intention to mislead this Court. The omitted words are: The omission of these words has changed the very condition No.3 of the appointment order. The appellant has not come with clean hands and he is not entitled to any discretionary relief. C. The allegation that there were no complaints against the appellant as to his working conduct, behaviour is not correct. There were complaints against his conduct and behaviour and his work was not found satisfactory and he has failed to improve even after warnings. D. As there were no adverse reports against the appellant till May 20, 1997 his employment period was ordered to be extended upto December 31, 1997 vide order Annexure-2. E. As per condition No. 3 of the appointment order before further extension of the employment period of the appellant, performance- report was called for from the Presiding Officer under whom the appellant remained posted and worked. The appellant worked under the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Gogunda and Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & A.C.J.M., Jhadol. Both the Officers submitted reports against the appellant and as his performance was not found satisfactory there was no occasion to extend the employment period of the appellant. F. The appellant's employment was tenure employment and it automatically came to an end with effect from December 31, 1997 i.e., on the expiry of the employment period. No formal order was required to be passed terminating the services of the appellant as the appellants services automatically came to an end in the absence of an extension order on December 31, 1997. G. As there were no adverse reports against the remaining L.D.Cs they were given extension of employment. H. The appellant did not attend the office of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn)-cum- A.C.J.M., Jhadol on 5th, 6th and 7th of November, 1997 without any intimation and on November 10, 1997, he marked presence for all the three dates viz., November 5, 1997, November 6, 1997 and November 7, 1997 by putting his initials in the attendance register which was also reported to the Presiding Officer. A notice was issued to him on November 10, 1997 to explain the above conduct Though the appellant sought time to submit a reply in the first instance, but, ultimately did not submit any reply. I. The appellant was warned more than once to improve the standard and efficiency of his working by the authorities under whom he worked; but, he failed to do so. J. No opportunity of hearing was required to be given in the present case since his services were not extended in accordance with the terms of the appointment order. K. The appellant was not refused employment but his services were not ordered to be extended for the reasons stated supra.;