MADAN, J. - (1.) THE aforesaid writ petitions have come up before us for hearing on a reference by the learned Single Judge of this court vide his order dated the 27th of October, 1993, when the learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage was pleased to observe as under : - "this writ petition involves a challenge to the constitutional validity of proviso to Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965. Such writ petition can be heard by a Division Bench. Put up this case before Division Bench. sd/---------------- (G. S. SINGHVI), J. "
(2.) IT is in these circumstances that the aforesaid writ petitions have been put up before us. Since both the writ petitions involve a common question of law, they are being disposed of by a common order which would be applicable to both the matters. The only question of law with which we are concerned in the present writ petitions is challenge to the constitutional validity of proviso to Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules') and the question of law to be decided is as under : - Whether the services of temporary employees of the Central Reserve Police Force can be terminated by having resort to Rule 5 of the C. C. S. (Temporary Service) Rules? For the sake of convenience and since the question of law to be decided is identical in both the cases, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5921/93 (Kanwar Singh v/s Union of India & Ors.) which for the sake of convenience is treated as the main petition. The petitioners in both the cases were appointed as constables/drivers in Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred as 'the C. R. P. F. ') on temporary basis by the respondents on advertisement being issued by the respondent No. 2, the Commandent, 123 Batallion, C. R. P. F. , Ajmer. The facts giving rise the above writ petitions, briefly stated, are as under:- The petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 5921/93 was issued a driving licence u/s 8 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, with effect from 28. 9. 1987 which was renewed upto 27. 9. 1993. The licence was valid for driving light motor vehicles, medium motor vehicles and heavy motor vehicles,
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was eligible to be appointed as a constable/driver with C. R. P. F. since he fulfilled the qualifications of minimum age and education. In response to the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2 for appointments of constables/drivers in C. R. P. F. on temporary basis, the petitioner joined his duty on 19. 10. 1991 at Ajmer and thereafter he was placed under training for a period of 9 months with effect from 19. 10. 1991 to 9. 8. 1992 during which period he remained under training at Ajmer from 10. 8. 1992 to 23. 8. 1992 at Patiala. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to serve at Ajmer where the Detachment Group of C. R. P. F. 123 Batallion having its Headquarters at Mohali, Ropar (Punjab) was located. The petitioner served in the capacity of constable/driver by performing his duties satisfactorily during the aforesaid period. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in May 1993, the Commandant, 123 Batallion, C. R. P. F. , Ajmer, respondent No. 2 herein, terminated the services of the petitioner by having resort to proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he remained in service of the respondents from 19. 10. 1991 to May 1993. It will be relevant to refer to the office order No. D. V. 1/93-123-EC-IV dated 31. 5. 1993 issued by the respondent No. 2 in this connection : "in persuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule-5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, I, B. D. S. Chauhan, Commandant 123 Batallion CRPF Ajmer (Raj.), hereby terminate forthwith the service of No. 913237255 Ct/dvr. Kanwar Singh and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or , as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. sd/---- 31/5 (B. D. S. CHOUHAN) "commandant" ;