SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the order of termination dated 24/09/1999 whereby his services were dispensed with from the post of Carpenter.
(2.) Brief facts which need to be noted are that the petitioner was appointed after undergoing regular selection process on the post of Carpenter on probation for a period of two years and placed in the regular pay scale vide order dated 24/09/1996. The petitioner's services were extended on probation further vide order dated 16/04/1999 from 25/09/1998 to 15/07/1999. Again, vide order dated 21/07/1999, his probation period was extended from 16/07/1999 to 13/09/1999 and then again vide order dated 20/09/1999 the probation period was extended from 13/09/1999 to 25/09/1999. Thereafter his services were dispensed with by the impugned order dated 24/09/1999 stating that he had been given chance to learn the work but has not shown interest in learning the work of Carpenter and the Superintendent of Police, Baran has stated that the petitioner is wholly incompetent to perform the work.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Rule 21 and 21A of the Rajasthan Class IV Service Rules, 1963, which govern the service conditions of the petitioner who is a Class IV employee, the services of the petitioner could not have been continued on probation endlessly as has been done from time to time.;