- (1.) By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- i) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to continue the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) with all consequential benefits; ii) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the termination of the services of the petitioner and not extending the term as illegal and setting aside the same; iii)to issue any other order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner; iv)to award the cost of this writ petition in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) The factual matrix of the petitioner's case, in short is thus:- That the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in the service of the Municipal Board, Dholpur on 27th May, 1993. The Collector, Dholpur, who happened to be the Chairman of the Integrated Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns Scheme (in short 'IDSMT'), accorded sanction vide order dated 1st June, 1993 to appoint the petitioner on the said post. It has been averred that the non-petitioners extended his period of service from time to time and last extension was given in the year 1995 as a result of which he continued to work till 2nd September, 1995. His services were terminated on 25th September, 1995. It is alleged that the non-petitioners were employing the retired person in his place, whereas he had more experience to work and better claim to be continued.
(3.) The petitioner has filed the writ petition on the following grounds:- a) that the act of the non-petitioners to replace the petitioner by the retired person is illegal, which amounts to malice in law. b) that when the work is continuing, an Ad hoc employee cannot be removed from the work till it is completed. c) that the action of the non-petitioners is in contravention of the provisions of Rule 27 of Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate and Munisterial Service) Rules, 1963, which clearly lay down that if a temporary appointment is continued for more than one year, he shall be referred to a Commission for its concurrence and it is only when the Commission refuses to concur, the services can be terminated. d) that the non-petitioners compelled the petitioner to write a resignation letter before extension of his term of appointment. e) that the action of the non-petitioners is also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.;