IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1011 of 1998 SANJAY CHAUHAN V/S GOVERNING BODY, GANDHI VIDHYA MANDIR& ORS Mr. JK MISHRA, for the appellant / petitioner NONE PRESENT, for the respondent Date of Order : 5.12.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J. ORDER ----- The appellant by this appeal seeks to challenge the dismissal of his writ petition by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking to challenge the order of Non-governmental Education Tribunal dated 21.10.1997, whereby the learned Tribunal had declined to interfere with the termination of the petitioner's services. The facts of the case are, that the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer-cum-Typist, under the Scheme mentioned in Annexure 1 & 2, purely on temporary basis. The appointment order stipulated, that the appointment shall be only till continuance of the Scheme, and thereafter, will automatically come to an end. It was also stipulated, that in peculiar circumstances also, the petitioner can be terminated. Annexure 2 is a document, whereby the posts were created under this Scheme, and only one post of Stenographer-cum-Typist was created. Then vide order Dated 09.04.1997, the petitioner's services were terminated, on the ground of it being purely temporary, and by giving one month's salary, for notice period. Before tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the employer, that the petitioner was appointed under the Scheme, which came to an end on 31.03.1997, and therefore, his services were terminated after giving one month's notice. The learned Tribunal found, that it is not in dispute, that the petitioner was appointed under the Scheme, and it was considered, that since no grant was received from the Government regarding the Scheme, the petitioner could not be continued. The learned Tribunal also considered the fact, that even otherwise, the services could be terminated by complying of Rule 39(1) of the Rules, by giving one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice, which has been done in the present case. Thus, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Learned Single Judge found, that the tribunal has recorded the finding of fact, that the petitioner was appointed under the Project, financed by the Central Government, and the State Government is liable to pay, 2 provided the amount is reimbursed by the Central Government, and since the fund was not received from the Central Government, the services of the petitioner have been terminated, wherein there is no infirmity, or illegality, and consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. It was contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant, that as a matter of fact, the Scheme is continuing, and had not come to an end on 31.03.1997, specific pleadings in this regard had been taken in the writ petition, giving out, that other persons have been appointed, under the Scheme, even subsequently, pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.07.1997, and therefore, the termination could not be sustained, and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated. We have heard learned counsel, as no body has appeared for the respondent, and considered the submissions, and have gone through the file of the writ petition. The perusal of the writ petition shows, that of course, the petitioner has pleaded in para 13 about appointments having been made pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.07.1997, but then, what is significant to note is, that the appointments have been made, on the post of 3 Lecturer, Class IV, and Office Superintendent, no appointments have been shown to have been made on the post of Stenographer-cum-Typist. It is not shown on the side of the petitioner, whether before learned Tribunal, or before learned Single Judge, or even before us, that the State Government is receiving the funds for this post from the Central Government, and in the absence thereof, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue on the post. This is one aspect to the matter. The other aspect of the matter is, that all said and done, the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis, and his services could be terminated anytime, obviously by giving one month's notice; which has been given in accordance with terms of the appointment order, and also Rule 39(1) of the Rules. That being the position, in view of the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in JT 2006(4) SC-420, it cannot be said, that the petitioner has any right to claim the reinstatement. Thus, considering from any standpoint, we do not find any force in the appeal. Therefore, the same is dismissed. ( MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. preety 4