Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 26.05.2010 passed by the respondent No. 1 vide which the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that he became surplus in view of the reinstatement of one Laxman Lal Dindore.
(2.) THE petitioner applied for the post of Class IV employee in Doongarpur Judgeship and was selected through regular process under Rajasthan Class IV Service (Recruitment & other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999 vide order dated 21.12.2009. As per the order of appointment, the petitioner was appointed as Probationer Trainee and was to undergo probation for a period of 2 years from the date of his appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the office of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Simalwara vide order dated 5.1.2010 passed by the respondent No. 2. Suddenly before the expiry of the probation period, the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 26.05.2010 on the ground that one Laxman Lal Dindore, who was an ex -employee was reinstated on the post of Class IV in compliance of order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the Committee of this Court. As a result of the said reinstatement, number of Class IV employees in Doongarpur Judgeship came to be 43 which was exceeding the total number of sanctioned posts i.e. 42. While praying for setting aside the order dated 26.05.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected through regular process and therefore, termination of his services was unfair, arbitrary and against the Rules.
(3.) REPLY has been filed. As per the Reply, the facts are not disputed. However, it is stated that the services of the petitioner were terminated in view of the provisions of Rule 23A(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The petitioner being the junior most employee had to go since Laxman Lal Dindore was ordered to be reinstated. It is further stated that the petitioner was on probation and therefore, his services could always be terminated within the probation period before he was regularized. The petitioner had accepted all the conditions of his appointment order and then joined the duties as Class IV employee as a Probationer Trainee purely on temporary basis and therefore, it does not lay in the mouth of the petitioner to agitate any ground contrary to the contents of terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment order which was accepted by him and that the said Rules were duly applicable to him.;