Rajindar Sachar, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 30-9-70 of the respondent No. 2 terminating the petitioners's services.
(2.) By an order of 14th November, 1968, the District Collector, Jaisalmer appointed the petitioner and others as Lower Division Clerk on a temporary basis One of the condition in the appointment order was that the service will be liable to be terminated without any notice. After the petitioner's services were terminated by the impugned order he took up the Smatter with respondents but not having got any relief he has come up to this Court.
(3.) The first argument of counsel for the petitioner Mr. Maloo is that the petitioner who was appointed on 14-11-68, had a right to be reabsorbed in Government vacancies which may subsequently arise. He seeks to rely on Government notification of dated 23-7-66 and 29-11-69 in which it is stated that employee who may have bean declared surplus and who have been in continuous Government service prior to 1st December, 1968 will be eligible for absorption subject to availability of vacancies. It has been alleged in the petition that some subsequent appointments were made, while the petitioner was ignored in violation of the circular. In my view the reliance of the petitioner on this circular is misplaced. The petitioner's service has been terminated in terms of bis appointment order. There is no indication that his services have been terminated because he had become surplus. His services were terminated because he was a temporary employee. This circular as such would not be applicable to him. In reply filed by the respondent, a reference is made to Government circular dated 10-6-71 wherein it has been clarified that the said circular which required the reabsorption relates only to those employees (sic) did not apply to those who were appointed temporarily and whose services have been terminated in term of the appointment letter. This contention therefore fails.;