1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7255/03 Hansraj vs. District Judgeship, Alwar S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7256/03 Rajendra Kr. Raigar vs. District Judeship, Alwar Date of order : 6/4/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri A.K. Jaiman for the petitioners. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** These two writ petitions are filed by petitioner Hansraj and Rajendra Kumar Raigar who were appointed with the respondents on the post of Class-IV employee by order dated 11.1.2001 on urgent temporary basis for a period of three months respectively on 11.1.01 and 5.5.01 for a period of three months or till availability of regularly selected persons. Their services along with six others were terminated by order dated 28.10.2003. Shri A.K. Jaiman, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that even though the appointment of the petitioner was described as on urgent temporary but it was only a misnomer. Otherwise, all such formalities which are required to be 2 completed at the time of regular appointment were fulfilled. The petitioners competed with another eligible persons and they were interviewed. The appointment order was accordingly issued in the regular scale of pay. Learned counsel cited Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Class-IV (Service and Other Conditions), Rules 1999 (for short-the Rules) and argued that those appointed on temporary / officiating basis if not confirmed within six months are liable to be made permanent on completion of period of two years of service. Leaned counsel cited example of one Pooran Singh and submitted that even though he was appointed subsequently by order dated 12.11.01 on urgent temporary basis but his appointment was saved just because he was transferred to another judgeship. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petition be allowed and the order of termination be set aside and the respondents be directed to treat the petitioner as regularised in service as per Rule 31, supra deeming as if his appointment was made on substantive basis from the date one Pooran Singh was appointed and the 3 condition incorporated in the order of appointment that the appointment would be on urgent temporary basis be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to regularise the petitioner in service. The respondents have contested the writ petition and have submitted that not only the petitioner but services of as many as 8 temporary employees were terminated. They were appointed on temporary basis and the appointment order itself stated that the appointment was made till regularly selected candidates becomes available. It is contended that the appointment of the petitioner was made under Rule 29 of the Rules and therefore it cannot be said that he has been appointed on regular basis. It is contended that on the date on which the services of the petitioner and other six were terminated, Pooran Singh was not working with the respondents at Alwar. There is therefore no case of discrimination. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that even the appointment order which the petitioners have produced on record 4 clearly show that their appointment was made on urgent temporary basis for a period of three months and the appointment order/s clearly state that it was made under Rule 29 of the Rules. The appointment orders also stated that services of the petitioners could be brought to an end at any time even before that. In the instant case, the appointment of not only the petitioners but also six others who all were appointed on urgent temporary basis were terminated. The argument of discrimination with reference to Pooran Singh whose services are shown to have been transferred to some other district cannot be upheld for directing the respondents to regularise services of the petitioner and to quash and set aside the termination order. In the face of the clear stipulation made in the appointment order that the appointment of the petitioners was not made on regular basis and was only on urgent temporary basis, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/