IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 2081 of 2008. Reserved on: 04.10.2010. Decided on: 19.10.2010. _____________________________________________________ D.S. Khagta. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondents No. 2 and 3. : Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate. Respondent No. 4 is exparte. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature to the post of Assistant Development Officer on 7.10.1977. In sequel thereto, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Development Officer on 19.11.1977. His services were terminated on 12.03.1980. He filed C.W.P. No. 49 of 1980 in this Court, assailing the order dated 12.03.1980., which was transferred to the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 378 of 1986. The same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 03.12.1991 by treating the petition as appeal/representation to 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who was directed to decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in person, through notice. The Secretary (Industries), Government of Himachal Pradesh rejected the same on 10.08.1992. 2. Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the termination of the petitioner and the order dated 10.08.1992, passed by the Financial Commissioner- Cum-Secretary (Industries), Government of Himachal Pradesh are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that the termination of the petitioner is not in accordance with Section 13(3) of the H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1966 read with Regulations 3(4) and 3(6) of the H.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board Regulations, 1970. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 have strenuously argued that the appointment of the petitioner to the post in question was not in accordance with law. They contended that the post was never advertised and the appointment has been made merely on the basis of the telephonic instructions issued by the Minister concerned to the Chairman. They further contended that the petitioner was over age at the time of his appointment and no relaxation was ever approved by the competent authority. They also contended that the approval of the State Government was not obtained before appointing the petitioner. They finally contended that the appointment of the petitioner was merely on adhoc basis and the termination of the petitioner, in these circumstances, is legal and valid. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has submitted an application for considering his candidature for the post of Assistant Development Officer on 7.10.1977. In sequel thereto, the Chairman has passed the following order on 17th November, 1977: “As per the telephonic direction from the Industries Minister, the applicant may be appointed on adhoc basis as Assistant Development Officer and his case for age relaxation may be forwarded to the Government.” 6. The appointment to a public office could not be made merely on the basis of the directions issued by the Industries’ Minister. In India, we do not follow spoils system. It is of utmost importance that all the vacancies are advertised in the leading newspapers and by broadcasting the same through All India Radio. The same are also required to be notified to the employment exchanges. However, in the present case, the post has neither been advertised nor any other candidate has been interviewed alongwith the petitioner. It is evident from Section 13(3) of the H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1966 read with Regulations 3(4) and 3(6) of the H.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board Regulations, 1970 that the prior approval of the competent authority was required. The post in question carried salary of more than `300/-. There is no material placed on record by the petitioner that his appointment was ever approved by the competent authority. 7. Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner has been permitted to work for three years and his client was deemed to have been confirmed and his services could not be terminated without any procedure under the Act and Regulations framed by the Board. This plea merits rejection. A bare perusal of the appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner makes it abundantly clear that the appointment of the petitioner was merely on adhoc basis. He was never appointed on permanent basis. It is only in those cases, where the persons are recruited on permanent or temporary basis, there is provision for probation and putting the person for trial for a period of three months. In view of this, since the appointment of the petitioner was merely on adhoc basis, there is no illegality in the order dated 12.03.1980, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 8. Moreover, the petitioner was over age at the time when he was appointed. There is nothing on record to suggest that his case was ever considered by the competent authority for relaxation. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge October 19, 2010. (bhupender)