Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India & Ors vs Gopa Ram on 24 September, 2011
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Sangeet Lodha
DBCWP No.6246/2011
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJATHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6246/2011
Date of Order :: 24th September 2011.
:PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Mr.Vinit Kumar Mathur]
Mr.M.S.Godara ] for the petitioners
<><>
BY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication (Department of Post), the Superintendent of Post Office, Sirohi, and the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Jalore, seek to question the order dated 05.04.2011 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT'/'the Tribunal') has allowed the Original Application (OA No.231/2008) filed by the applicant-respondent Shri Gopa Ram, who had been working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master ('GDSBPM') at the Post Office Safada, District Jalore; and who stated the grievance that he was illegally deprived of the employment from 29.11.2006 and his representation was unjustifiably turned down under the impugned communication dated 18.07.2007.
Put in brief, the relevant facts and background aspects of DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -2- the matter are as follows: The applicant-respondent submitted in the said OA that in response to the notification dated 17.08.2002 inviting applications for the vacant post of GDSBPM at village Safada, he applied being eligible therefor; and came to be appointed by the order dated 24.12.2002, copy whereof was not given to him but he was handed over the charge of the said post of GDSBPM on 30.12.2002. The applicant-respondent, thereafter, referred to several repeated acts and actions whereby the orders were issued by the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 for taking the charge from him and for handing over the charge back to him after a short break of 2-3 days. The applicant asserted that he continued to work on the post of GDSBPM Safada until 29.11.2006 although the authorities repeated the said process a number of times where the charge was taken over by the Mail Overseer only in order to give him a break; and the charge was again handed over to him after 2-3 days.
The applicant-respondent stated the grievance that ultimately, he was relieved on 29.11.2006 in compliance of the orders issued by the authorities and despite making a representation dated 06.12.2006, he was not reinstated; and instead, by the impugned communication dated 18.07.2007, his prayer for reinstatement was declined while alleging that his appointment itself had not been legal and regular. The case of the applicant-respondent before the Tribunal was that since the date of joining i.e., 30.12.2002 and until the date of relieving i.e., 29.11.2006, he had worked continuously on the post of GDSBPM for nearly four years; and only the artificial breaks were inserted DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -3- in his service so as to prevent him from earning the higher status and to deprive him of the benefits envisaged under the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 ['the GDS Rules']. The applicant submitted that while ignoring the artificial breaks, he ought to be treated as having continuously served and hence, the impugned orders for termination of his service deserve to be set aside. The applicant also submitted that he had been appointed properly and after due scrutiny of the applications; and it was an afterthought when the authorities alleged some irregularity or illegality in his appointment. The applicant further asserted that even on such an afterthought, his services could not have been terminated without an opportunity of being heard. It was further the case of the applicant that the impugned orders were wholly without jurisdiction, as the GDS Rules did not confer any powers on the authorities for terminating the services of an employee who had served for more than four years. It was contended that even if his appointment was of provisional nature, its termination after completion of four years had been violative of the GDS Rules because Rule 8 thereof, providing for termination of service, did not apply to any person who had been in continuous employment for more than three years. The applicant also referred to the orders passed by the Tribunal on 28.05.2003 in OA No.229/2002 and on 11.12.2006 in OA No.23/2006; and submitted that he was entitled to the similar reliefs as allowed by the Tribunal to the other but similarly circumstanced persons.
While contesting the said OA before the Tribunal, the stand of the present petitioners had been that the post of DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -4- GDSBPM Safada fell vacant with effect from 01.01.2002 and hence, a notification for filling up this vacancy was issued on 14.08.2002 through public advertisement and it was mentioned that the post was reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category but, in case of non-availability of suitable Scheduled Tribe candidate, the appointment could be made from other category. According to the petitioners, five candidates applied but two of the applications were rejected being incomplete and the income certificate of one of the remaining was found to be false, leaving only two candidates in the panel of selection; and, at that stage, in accordance with the instructions contained in the Directorate's letter dated 07.11.1997, the post was proposed to be treated unreserved and, accordingly, a proposal was sent to the Post Master General, Rajasthan Western Region, Jodhpur on 18.11.2002.
The petitioners (the respondent in the OA) further averred that on 03.12.2002, the applicant submitted an application for appointment on temporary basis on the said post until the regular selections were made; and considering this prayer favourably, the applicant was engaged on provisional basis by the order dated 24.12.2002 with effect from 30.12.2002, as a stop-gap arrangement. The petitioners yet further averred that the services of the applicant were discontinued from time to time as permissible under the GDS Rules and as clearly stipulated in the appointment letter itself that the competent authority could terminate his appointment at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. The petitioners further submitted that later, DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -5- a person having secured higher marks than the applicant was issued the letter of appointment, but he refused to join, and hence, no selection on regular basis could be made to that post. However, the petitioners yet further submitted, when one surplus GDS, Shri Laxman, was found available, the applicant was relieved on 29.11.2006, and the charge of GDSBPM Safada was handed over to the said Shri Laxman on 04.12.2006. The petitioners asserted that in view of the order dated 03.12.2003, as passed by the Tribunal in OA No.1/2003: Mana Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors., the applicant could have been relieved by appointing another person on provisional basis.
While denying that there has been any mala fide exercise of powers, the petitioners maintained that they had acted in accordance with the Rules and the Instructions of the Directorate; and that the provisional engagement of the applicant and termination of his services were as per the written consent given by him in the application seeking appointment.
The applicant filed a replication asserting that he had never been given a copy of the order dated 24.12.2002 regarding his engagement being only provisional. It was reiterated that the department had no right and authority to give the artificial breaks; and that the appointment of the applicant was not in any manner illegal or irregular.
The petitioners, thereafter, filed an additional affidavit and submitted that the appointment of the applicant had only been a stop-gap arrangement and the same had to be discontinued after the expiry of the specified period as per Rule 16 (ii) of GDS DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -6- Rules. It was further submitted that earlier, the selection proceedings could not be finalised only due to the pendency of a Court case.
The Tribunal in the first place took note of the background aspects relating to the post of GDSBPM at Safada. An order dated 03.12.2003, as passed in OA No.1/2003 Mana Ram Vs. Union of India was referred wherein the earlier notification inviting application for the same post of GDSBPM Safada was considered; and it was found that the said Shri Mana Ram was appointed on the post with effect from 01.02.2002 only on provisional basis with no right and only as a stop-gap arrangement. Therein (i.e., in OA No.1/2003), the Tribunal had also referred to the requirements of the selection on the basis of matriculation marks and it was found that the said applicant Mana Ram had secured lesser marks than the other applicants. The net outcome was that the Tribunal rejected the OA filed by the said Shri Mana Ram after finding no case of infringement of a legal right.
In the present case, the Tribunal observed that the applicant Shri Gopa Ram (the respondent herein), who was provisionally appointed in place of the applicant of OA No.1/2003 Mana Ram, in fact, got benefited from the said order dated 03.12.2003 passed in OA No.1/2003.
The Tribunal, thereafter, referred to various orders passed in relation to the other akin nature cases including the order dated 11.12.2006 in OA No.23/2006 wherein, it had been held that Rule 8 of the GDS Rules provided for three years continuous DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -7- employment from the date of appointment as the cut off date for termination at any time without notice and hence, the services of a person who had worked continuously for over three years, could not have been terminated without following the prescribed procedure. The Tribunal also referred to the order passed by this Court in CWP No.4380/2009 wherein this Court had upheld the order of the Tribunal in OA No.208/2007 to the effect that after continuous employment of three years, services of a GDSBPM could not have been terminated without following the prescribed procedure.
After being satisfied, thus, that the services in relation to the post in question could not have been terminated if the employment had been for a continuous period of more than three years, the Tribunal considered the question as to whether the employment of the applicant had been for a continuous period of more than three years or not. In this regard, the Tribunal accepted the case of the applicant and found that the artificial breaks in service could not operate against his rights. The Tribunal found that the decisions in other cases (as referred hereinabove) were applicable to the case of the applicant and held that his removal on 29.11.2006 had been without jurisdiction and illegal. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the OA with the following observations and discussion:-
"18. In the light of the above cited submissions, the only point which is left to be examined by us now is as to whether the employment of the applicant was continuous for a period of more than 3 years or not. The applicant has produced copies of the successive orders issued after every 90 days' period by the Respondents 2 & 3 for directing the Mail Overseer to relieve the applicant for a period of two to three days, and then to hand over the charge again to the applicant himself. The issue to be examined is as to whether such DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -8- repeated handing over and taking over of the charge results in any discontinuation of the services or not.
19. From the Rule 6 of the 1964 Rules applicable to Extra Department Agents, and under the parallel Rule 8 of the new GDS Rules, 2001, it has been prescribed that up to the period of 3 years' employment, the services of the EDDA earlier (GDS now) could have been terminated by the respondent authorities without giving any reaosns, by exercising their powers under the Rules. However, when this limitation of the period of 3 years' period of a sort of Probation comes to an end, and the incumbent acquires a kind of lien to hold the post, his services cannot then be terminated without following the proper prescribed procedure in this regard.
20. However, mere handing over and taking over of the charge with short gaps in between does not amount to a discontinuity in employment. Charge handing over takes place even when an official proceeds on Earned Leave or HPL, or any Leave of other kind other than C.L., and in the case of termination of the services of the government servant also. Therefore, the ploy adopted by the respondents in repeatedly resorting to enforced handing over of the charge by the applicant after almost every 90 days, and his again being placed in charge after a gap of a couple of days cannot be held to amount to a discontinuance in the employment of the applicant.
21. Respondents have themselves accepted that at one point of time only 2 candidates had remained, and that they had removed Mana Ram and appointed the applicant in his place only because Mana Ram had filed a case, and the applicant had agreed to serve on provisional basis. The prayer of Mana Ram before this Tribunal was considered in the above cited O.A. No.1/2003 and it was held that a provisional appointee could have been replaced by another provisional appointee. But, what was not mentioned by the concurrent Bench that day in so many words in its order was that this could have been done by the respondents only for a period of 3 years from the date of initial appointment of the concerned person, as had been done in the case of Mana Ram.
22. Therefore, in the case of the applicant, even though he was only a provisional appointee initially on 30.12.2002, since he continued to work, only with artificial breaks, even beyond the date of completion of 3 years from his initial appointment on the said post on 29.12.2005, the respondent authorities perhaps lost their powers, and ceased to be able to exercise their powers under Rule 8 of the GDS Rules, 2001 (parallel to Rule 6 of the EDA Rules, 1964) to terminate the services of such an appointee without following the due process as prescribed for such removal.
23. If the respondents had been able to appoint a permanent incumbent from within ST category for which this post was reserved initially, or from any other category, before or upto 29.12.2005 i.e., before the date the applicant completed 3 years of his nearly continuous provisional employment, the respondents may perhaps have had an excuse to use the powers given to them by the Rule 8 of the GDS Rules, 2001, parallel Rule 6 of 1964 Rules.
24. But, as admitted by the respondents themselves, the applicant continued to work even beyond that date 29.12.2005, and the applicant was working in the said post till November 2006, when he was summarily removed only to accommodate a person who had been declared surplus elsewhere, and who was appointed against DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -9- that post from 3.12.2006.
25. It is therefore held that this cannot be a case of legitimate exercise of powers by the respondents to replace one provisional appointee by another provisional appointee, as laid down and upheld by the concurrent Bench in Mana Ram's case. Rather, in this case it appears that the applicant is correct in submitting that the ratio of the cases decided in O.A. No.229/2002 (Ogar Mal Bhil), O.A. No.23/2006 (Dinesh Chandra Vyas), and in O.A. No.208/2007 (Chandresh Kumar), which order has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court also in the D.B. CWP cited above, would be more applicable in his case, and the benefit of these Judgments would accrue to the applicant, and it is therefore held that his removal by the respondents on 29.11.2006 was without jurisdiction and illegal.
26. In the result the O.A. is allowed, and the Annexure A/1 dated 18.7.2007, and Annexure A/2 dated 29.11.2006 are set aside, and M.A. No.126/2008 stands disposed of. No order as to costs."
Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Tribunal has erred in law in failing to consider that the applicant was working on temporary basis on the post of GDSBPM and as per the GDS Rules, the Superintendent, Post Office is the competent authority and so also the Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices and hence, the order dated 29.11.2006 cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that under the GDS Rules, a regular GDS who is working on substantive basis cannot be removed after three years and this safeguard is available to only those employees who were appointed through regular process on the substantive posts and by the competent authority. In the instant case, according to the petitioners, the applicant was engaged on temporary basis without any selection process; and hence, only because of having worked for more than three years with breaks, he cannot be continued on the post for which he was never selected. According to the petitioners, the CAT has not properly appreciated the import of the order dated 03.12.2003 in OA No.1/2003 filed by the said Shri Mana Ram although the DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -10- applicant was also working on provisional basis and on a stop- gap arrangement. It is further submitted that the CAT has erred in failing to consider that the applicant was removed from service to accommodate a regularly selected surplus employee who had the first right to remain and to continue on the post.
Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and having examined the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to interfere in the considered order passed by the Tribunal in this case.
The petitioners have placed on record the copies of orders passed in different cases that have been referred in the present case by the Tribunal. Upon perusal of the order dated 11.12.2006 as passed in OA No.23/2006: Dinesh Chandra Vyas Vs. Union of India & Anr., it is borne out that the said applicant was appointed as GDSBPM at Baman Tukda on temporary and provisional basis as a stop-gap arrangement on 28.11.2001 and continued so until passing of the order dated 17.01.2006 terminating his services. The Tribunal noticed that he had rendered more than three years continuous service and the termination order did not contain any reason whatsoever. The Tribunal noticed Rule 8 of the GDS Rules and found that the said applicant having been in continuous employment for more than three years, his services could not have been terminated; and in that regard, the Tribunal relied on the order passed in OA No.229/2002: Ogar Mal Bhil Vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 28.05.2003 and found that the impugned order was required DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -11- to be held as without jurisdiction, issued in arbitrary exercise of powers, and unsustainable.
It is further noticed from the copy of the order dated 17.02.2010 as passed in DB CWP No.4380/2009: Union of India & Anr. Vs. Chandresh Kumar @ Chunni Lal that this Court has considered the case of similarly circumstanced applicant whose services were sought to be terminated on the ground that incompetent authority had offered him appointment and, therefore, the order of his appointment was ab initio null and void. This Court examined Rule 6 of the old EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 and so also the presently applicable Rule 8 of the GDS Rules and approved the order passed by the Tribunal as being in consonance with the provisions of law because before passing of the order impugned, no opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant.
Rule 8 of the GDS Rules, taken into consideration in the aforesaid matters and so also in the present matter, reads as under:-
"8.Termination of Employment.-(1) The employment of a Sevak who has not already rendered more than three years' continuous employment from the date of his appointment shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Sevak to the Appointing Authority or by the Appointing Authority to the Sevak;
(2) The period of such notice shall be one month:
Provided that the employment of any such Sevak may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Sevak shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of Basic Time Related Continuity Allowance plus Dearness Allowance as admissible for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his employment, or, as the case may be, DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -12- for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.
NOTE.-Where the intended effect of such termination has to be immediate, it should be mentioned that one month's Time Related Continuity Allowance plus Dearness Allowance as admissible is being remitted to the Sevak in lieu of notice of one month through money order."
The relevant part of the decision of this Court in Chandresh Kumar @ Chunni Lal (supra) reads as under:-
"Upon perusal of Rule 8, it is obvious that the employment of a Sevak who has not already rendered three years' continuous employment from the date of his first appointment can be terminated at any time by a notice in writing given either by Sevak to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Sevak. Here, in this case, admittedly, the respondent was appointed on 03.01.2001 and termination order was passed on 28.03.2007, which is after three years, therefore, the learned Tribunal passed the following order :
"10. Coming to the facts of this case, we find that the services of the applicant has been terminated after more than 3 years. This could not have been done by invoking the powers mentioned in the termination order. The impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside. The applicant shall be reinstated in service and will be entitled to consequential benefits. This order shall not stand in the way of respondents taking action under other provisions of the Rules. The order regarding reinstatement shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one month of the receipt of the order. No costs. Thus, this O.A. Is disposed off"
We have perused the judgment impugned. In our opinion, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is perfectly in consoance with the provisions of law in view of the fact that before passing the order impugned no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent applicant which is mandatory in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., 1993 SCC (L&S) 723.....".
Thus, the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on interpretation of Rule 8 ibid. is clear to the effect that the DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -13- employment of a GDSBPM who had not rendered three years continuous service could be terminated at any time by notice in writing by either of the parties but when an incumbent has rendered three years service, no order terminating such service could be passed without opportunity of hearing. We find no reason to take any different view of the matter; and the Tribunal does not appear to have committed any illegality in holding, while following the decisions aforesaid, that after continuous employment for over three years, the services of the applicant could not have been terminated by the petitioners without following the prescribed procedure. Though a suggestion has been made that the safeguard under Rule 8 ibid. is available only to a regular GDS who is appointed through regular process on substantive post by a competent authority but this suggestion neither appears to be in conformity with the plain language of Rule 8 nor could be countenanced for the view already taken by this Court in Chandresh Kumar @ Chunni Lal (supra).
In the aforesaid view of the matter and in the admitted fact situation that the services of the applicant were terminated without any notice, without any hearing, and without following the prescribed procedure, the only relevant point for determination is as to whether the employment of the applicant had been continuous for a period of three years or not; and, in this regard, we are unable to find any fault in the findings of the Tribunal that the applicant has indeed served for a continuous period of over three years. It is more than apparent that the repeated acts of so- called 'taking over and again handing over the charge' were DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -14- aimed only at creating some artificial breaks in service. Obviously, the idea behind resorting to this methodology of artificial breaks had been to somehow obviate the operation of the GDS Rules, particularly Rule 8 ibid. that invests the incumbent with a right against termination after working continuously for three years. The Tribunal has rightly pointed out that in legal parlance, 'handing over - taking over' have definite connotations and take place when an incumbent proceed on leave or in case of termination of service. Interestingly, the petitioners have not been able to show any specific order of termination of service of the applicant during the said period of his working for about four years, from 30.12.2002 to 29.11.2006. Mere directions to the Mail Overseer for taking over the charge for a few days and handing over the charge back cannot be regarded as valid termination of service inside the period of three years. We find no fault when the Tribunal has said that 'the ploy adopted by the respondents (the present petitioners) in repeatedly resorting to enforced handing over of the charge by the applicant after almost every 90 days, and his again being placed in charge after a gap of a couple of days, cannot be held to amount to a discontinuance in the employment of the applicant.' We agree with the Tribunal on the observations aforesaid and are clearly of the view that the ploy of giving artificial breaks for a couple of days cannot be considered bringing about the legal effect of discontinuance of service; and does neither operate against the legal rights of the applicant nor provides the DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -15- petitioners any ground to assert that it had not been a matter of continuous service for a period over three years.
Once the finding is reached that mere handing over and taking over of charge with short gaps did not amount to discontinuity in employment and the applicant had indeed served for a period over three years, the consequences, per Rule 8 ibid. and the interpretation aforesaid, are bound to follow; and the Tribunal does not appear unjustified in observing that even when the applicant was initially a provisional appointee from 30.12.2002 but since he continued to work, only with artificial breaks, beyond three years from his initial appointment, the authorities (the petitioners herein) were not entitled to exercise their powers under Rule 8 ibid. to terminate his services without following due process as prescribed.
In the given factual scenario and the operation and effect of the GDS Rules, when the applicant continued to work beyond three years from the date of his initial appointment i.e., beyond 29.12.2005, he could not have been summarily thrown out only in order to accommodate a person who was allegedly declared surplus elsewhere and who was sought to be appointed against the post in question only from 03.12.2006. The rights against termination that came existing in the applicant much before the month of November 2006 could not have been nullified in the name of accommodating a surplus staff. In this regard also, the petitioners had not been able to come out with a specific and direct case if they have ever been able to make regular selection for the post of GDSBPM at Safada, that was reserved for ST DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -16- Category. A feeble and uncertain suggestion had been that at one point of time, someone having secured higher marks than the applicant was issued a letter of appointment but he refused to join. The other suggestion, thereafter, had been that one surplus GDS was found available and hence, the charge of GDSBPM at Safada was handed over to him. Such alleged availability of a surplus staff cannot be taken as a valid regular selection for the post in question and in any case, even on that basis, the services of the applicant, who had already served for more than three years, could not have been dispensed with contrary to the requirements of the GDS Rules.
The petitioners have contended that on the basis of the order passed in Mana Ram's case (supra) relating to the very same post of GDSBPM at Safada, the services of the applicant could have been dispensed with as being that of stop-gap arrangement. The submission has its own shortcomings. Mana Ram's had been a case where the applicant was appointed with effect 01.02.2002 and his services came to be terminated with effect from 21.12.2002. He had not served beyond three years so as to be having such right as held by the applicant-respondent. It is, of course, true that the applicant-respondent got the appointment as GDSBPM at Safada only for termination of the services of Mana Ram but this connectivity of the present applicant Gopa Ram and the said Shri Mana Ram to the post in question does not travel any far; and so far the legal rights are concerned, there had been the basic difference because of length of service. The rights as available to the applicant- DBCWP No.6246/2011
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -17- respondent Gopa Ram because of serving for over three years were not available to the said Shri Mana Ram, who had worked for about 10-11 months. The decision in Mana Ram's case does not help the stand of the petitioners in any manner.
There is noticed another snag in the stand of the petitioners. As is clear from the factual matrix, the petitioners resorted to the hopeless methodology of insertion of breaks in the name of handing over and taking over of charge (which has already been pronounced against hereinabove). This apart, the petitioners suggested in their impugned communication dated 18.07.2007 that the applicant was not to be continued for his appointment being not legal and regular. On the other hand, the order dated 29.11.2006 issued to the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Jalore was to the effect that the charge of GDSBPM was to be taken over from the provisionally working person. At that stage, it was not the case of the authorities that the applicant was being relieved because of any such alleged illegality or irregularity in his appointment. If at all any such alleged illegality or irregularity was the reason of terminating the services of the applicant, it was all the more incumbent for the petitioners that a proper opportunity of hearing was extended to the applicant.
In a comprehension of the present one and the other referred cases, it appears that the petitioners had been vacillating in their approach towards such incumbents and came out with different propositions and different suggestions in relation to the services in question but without regard to the orders already passed by the Courts and without regard to the DBCWP No.6246/2011 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram -18- requirements of the GDS Rules. The petitioners, dealing with employment of a welfare State, cannot be acceded the liberty to go on vacillating in their stand and to perpetrate ad hocism and then, to take advantage of the same, squarely contrary to the Rules.
In an overall view of the matter, the order as passed by the Tribunal in this case does not appear suffering from any jurisdictional error. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out.
Consequently and as result of the aforesaid, this writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
(SANGEET LODHA), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK