S.K.KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties, perused the memo of revision petition and the impugned order.
(2.) WITH the consent of learned Counsel for parties, the following documents are taken on record: 1. Office order No. 649 to 652 dated 10.1.1996 passed by Nagar Palika, Rajakhera; 2. Copy of plaint of suit, out of which the revision petition arises; 3. Copy of order/letter dated 19.8.1996 of the office of Dy. Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur. 4. Copy of order dated 24.8.1996 of Nagar Palika, Rajakhera issued under the signature of its Chairman and Executive Officer. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 filed a suit for injunction, in which the prayer has been made: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Alongwith the suit the plaintiff respondent No. 1 filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. This is a matter pertain to the termination of services of an employee. Learned trial Court has allowed the application and restrained the petitioner -defendant from terminating the services of plaintiff -respondent No. 1. This order came to be confirmed by the Appellate Court, Additional District Judge, Dholpur vide its order dated 16.11.1999. Hence this revision petition.
(3.) UNDER order dated 10.1.1996 the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 was appointed on temporary basis as Class IV. It was a purely temporary and adhoc appointment. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 despite of repetedly put by the Court has failed to show that it was a regular appointment of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 made by petitioner -defendant. After following the Recruitment procedure as laid down in Rajasthan Municipalities, (Class IV) Services Rules. This appointment prima facie is not only de hors of recruitment rules aforestated but also of Constitutional Provisions as contained in Article 16 of the Constitution of India.;