- (1.) Appellant-petitioner was appointed on contractual basis subject to condition that his services were to continue till regularly selected candidates were made available or for a period of three years, whichever is earlier. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 31.05.2002. His services were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 14.08.2007. He was called for regular selection in the interview by the respondents, but it appears that he could not succeed in the interview and regularly selected candidates were available, as such, his services were dispensed with on account of availability of regularly selected candidates. Legality of the order dated 14.08.2007 was questioned by the petitioner by way of filing writ petition before the Single Bench. The Single Bench has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 05.02.2008. Hence, intra Court appeal has been preferred by the petitioner-appellant.
(2.) Mr. Manoj Pareek, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appointment of the appellant was made from the open market and he was duly selected and appointed in the year 2002. Thus, appellant's services could not have been terminated by the respondents without assigning any specific reason.
(3.) Ms. Manju Jain, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the order passed by the Single Bench and submitted that the appellant was called for interview for regular selection and he was not selected, whereas other candidates, who were found fit for regular appointment, were selected. As such, appellant's services were rightly dispensed with on account of availability of regularly selected candidates.;