1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1157 of 1997 ISRAR ALI V/S PANCHAYAT SAMITI,ZHADOLE, & ANR Mr. HARISH PUROHIT for Mr. SANJAY MATHUR, for the appellant / petitioner None present for the respondent Date of Order : 27.11.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the dismissal of his writ petition by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dt. 8.9.1997. The facts of the case are that on 14.2.1992 the petitioner filed the writ petition interalia seeking to challenge Annexure-11 dt. 29.1.1992 whereby his services were terminated w.e.f. 29.2.1992. It was alleged in the writ petition that he was appointed on 15.10.1986 vide Annexure-2 on temporary basis at a daily wages of Rs. 15/- which services were extended from time to time for a period of three months vide various orders Annexure-3 to 10. It is alleged that the petitioner was in continuous service, and he submitted a representation praying for his services to 2 be regularised, and he may be fixed in the regular pay scale applicable to L.D.C. However, since the services were not regularised, he preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 743/1991 which was admitted on 20.2.1991, and notices were served. However, no reply was filed, and the matter is pending. With this it is alleged that surprisingly the impugned order has been passed. The order has been challenged on the ground that it purports to have been passed on the basis that the petitioner was appointed under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna, but since he was not so appointed under the said scheme, and services could not be terminated because of abolition of post sanctioned under the scheme. The other ground given is that the appointing authority has not applied his mind in passing the order, and the order has been passed under the instruction of the State Government, while the Panchayat Samiti is an autonomous body, and the third ground given is that the petitioner's writ petition for regularisation is already pending, and there is fair chances of getting success in that writ petition, and consequently he will be entitled to be regularised in the services of the Panchayat Samiti, as such the termination of the petitioner from service in pursuance of Annexure-11 is bad. A reply to the writ petition has been filed contending interalia that the petitioner was appointed 3 purely on temporary basis till permanent incumbent is available, and in terms of Annexure-2 the services could be terminated any time without any notice. Then, it was pleaded that the selection on the post of L.D.C. is being made under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishand Rules, 1959 whereunder the District Establishment Committee is the selection body and panchayat samiti accords appointment to the person who is selected by the Zila Parishad, and that the panchayat samiti has powers to accord temporary appointment only for a period of six months which could not be continued beyond six months without concurrence of Zila Parishad, and even with concurrence of Zila Parishad it could not be continued beyond one year. With this it was alleged that the petitioner's services have been rightly terminated. It was also pleaded that the post of L.D.C. was available under the TADA scheme, and thereafter the petitioner was continued under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna, and since the petitioner was working against the post available under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna which post was abolished the petitioner's services were terminated. Various other pleadings were also taken. No rejoinder to this reply has been filed. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by holding that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis as a daily wage worker under 4 the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna and the matter stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors. Reported in AIR 1992 SC-789. It was held that earlier the appointment was under TADA Scheme, and that the person who is working under a temporary scheme, and on completion of the scheme if he has been terminated he cannot claim a right to continue in service. With this writ petition was dismissed. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was regularly appointed after selection, and had not been appointed under Jawar Rojgar Yojna, as such since the termination order Annexure-11 is passed on the assumption of the petitioner being appointed under Jawahar Rojgar Yojna is exfacie bad, and since the impugned order of the learned Single Judge proceeds on the basis of the appellant being appointed under Jawahar Rojgar Yojna that is also liable to be set aside. We have considered the submissions. In our view, even from a look at Annexure-1 it is clear that the said interview call was issued by the Vikas Adhikari of Panchayat Samiti calling the petitioner to appear for interview on 1.10.1986. Then, by the appointment order Annexure-2, the petitioner was given appointment on 5 temporary basis at Rs. 15/- per day, and it was specifically stipulated therein that on availability of any permanent employee, the petitioner shall be relieved, and that he can be relieved at any time without any previous notice. It is not in dispute that under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Rules the selection process is given therein, and the procedure adopted for selecting the petitioner, in our view, is not in accordance therewith. In this background admittedly the petitioner was given extension of three months every time vide Annexure-3 to 10, and ultimately vide Annexure-11 the services were terminated. In our view, irrespective of the question as to whether he was an employee under Jawahar Rojgar Yojna, when the petitioner's appointment was purely on temporary basis for specified period of time, or till availability of duly selected candidate whichever is earlier, if the services are terminated, in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in JT 2006(4) SC- 420, it cannot be said that there is anything wrong therein. So far as the contention about the petitioner having filed the Writ Petition No. 743/1991 for regularisation is concerned, that writ petition has been disposed of on 28.7.2000, whereby on the same date the Zila Parishad was impleaded as respondent no.3, Mr. L.R.Choudhary was directed to take notice on its behalf, 6 and the writ petition was disposed of with the request to Zila Parishad that the matter of the petitioner be placed before the District Establishment Committee, who may screen his case, and examine the record, and consider the case from the stand point of his being in service since 1986, and further directed to complete this exercise within three months. Admittedly Division Bench passed interim stay on 2.12.97 to the effect that appellant should be continued in service if he has not been removed so far. It has not come on record or informed as to whether appellant was in service on the date of passing of stay order by the Division Bench. It is further not informed as to what has been the out come of the order dt. 28.7.2000. Be that as it may, as the things stand, we do not find any error in the order Annexure-11, so as to require any interference in our appellate jurisdiction. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is clarified that if pursuant to the order dt. 28.7.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 743/91 if any order has been passed, this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner, and it is also clarified that if no order has been passed so far that order dt. 28.7.2000 will not be of any benefit to the petitioner. ( MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/