PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 04.05.2017 (Annex.9) may kindly be quashed and set aside and it may be given effect as if it was never passed against the petitioner. (b) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (c) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the office of Executive Officer is a public post and any appointment made by him cannot be said to be through a Non-Government Organization (NGO). Counsel for the petitioner has shown from record that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Computer Operator on 06.11.2009 and thereafter he continued to discharge his duties until 21.04.2017 when a notice was issued to him regarding his inappropriate appointment. In pursuance of order dated 21.04.2017, the petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter his services were terminated vide order dated 04.5.2017 (Annex.9). Counsel for the petitioner points out that the very basis of the order Annex.9 is contrary to facts on the face of it as the petitioner's services have been terminated on the ground of his appointment was made through a NGO. Order dated 04.5.2017 (Annex.9) reads as follows:-...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) Counsel for the respondent does not refute the language of aforementioned order and in fact admits that the appointment having not been made through NGO cannot be a ground for termination of service.;