IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 5816-17-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 1948 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.11.2008 Ramesh Kumar ...Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for Mr. M.K. Sangwan, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.6.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani whereby that of the trial court dated 20.2.2006 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that on 1.8.2000, the plaintiff joined as K.C.C. Class IV post in Government Primary School, Kari-Tokha, Sub Tehsil Badhra, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Charkhi Dadri. It was pleaded that defendant No.3 vide order No. E-2- 2000/Spl-I dated 22.8.2000 in compliance with the order No. 429- 31/2000 dated 22.8.2000 passed by defendant No.4, terminated the R.S.A. No. 1948 of 2008 -2- services of the plaintiff on 22.8.2000 itself on the ground of non- availability of the Class IV post illegally. It was further pleaded that a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also served upon the defendants but to no effect and that gave rise to the filing of the suit for declaration to the effect that the aforesaid orders terminating the service of the plaintiff were wrong, illegal, malafide and against the rules. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 4 filed their joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the plaintiff joined on the post of KCC Class IV on temporary basis and was removed from service during probation period and he had got no right to remain in service as he was appointed against the instructions of Haryana Government. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. Defendant No.5 did not appear in the trial court and was proceeded against exparte. The trial court framed various issues from the pleadings of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties held that the impugned orders, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, terminating the service of the plaintiff were unjustified and illegal having been passed discriminately and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 20.2.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed the appeal and the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 2.6.2007 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, R.S.A. No. 1948 of 2008 -3- and resultantly, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the present regular second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. The appellant was appointed as Class IV employee vide order dated 1.8.2000, Ex.P8, and he joined as such. Since, the appointment of the plaintiff was in violation of the Government instructions brought on record as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, which were in vogue at the relevant time, his services were rightly terminated on 22.8.2000 and, thereby no civil right of the plaintiff was infringed. Learned counsel for the appellant could not pin-point any error in the findings recorded by the lower appellate court which may call for interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. Moreover, the impugned orders are not punitive which may violate civil rights of the plaintiff. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. There is a delay of 9 days in filing and 155 days in refiling the appeal. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no separate orders are being passed in CM Nos. 5816-17-C of 2008 for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal and the same are disposed of as such. November 27, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE