1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P No. 3595 of 2009-G Date of Decision: 29.12.2011 Vijay Kumar son of Sh. Parma Nand, R/O village Katoh, P.O Tarkwari, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. State of H.P through Secretary (Technical Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. 2. Director of Technical Education Himachal Pradesh at Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. 3. Principal, Industrial Training Institute , Bhoranj at Bhakreri, District Hamirpur, H.P. ..Respondents. CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.9.2009 (ANNEXURE P-5) AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO WORK AS PART TIME SWEEPER AND FURTHER TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCME OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MAY BE PASSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy.A.G. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Sanjay Karol, J (oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) The entire record pertaining to the present case may please be summoned for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (ii) That the impugned order Annexure P- 5 dated 10.9.2009 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to work as part time sweeper. (iii) That the respondents may further be directed to appoint the petitioner as whole time daily paid employee from the post of part time employee accordance with the scheme of the respondents relating to the part time employees and then to regularize his services.” 2. Annexure P-5 reads as under:- Office of Industrial Training Institute, Bhoranj at Bhakreri Letter No. 12009-500 Dated 10.9.2009. To Vijay Kumar S/O Parmanand, Village Katoh, P.O Tarkwari, Tehsil Bhoranj, Distt. Hamirpur. Subject: Notice regarding termination. On the subject cited above, you are informed that pursuant to the Directorate of Technical Education Letter No. A.S.T.E (I.T),HV(5) Vijay Kumar 109- 27366 dated 5.5.09, your services are terminated. Sd/- Principal I.T.I Bhoranj. Certified to be true English translation of Annexure P-5.” 3 2. Order dated 5.5.2009 referred to in Annexure D-1 has been placed on record by the respondents and the same reads as under:- “To The Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Bhoranj District. Subject: Appointment of Part Time Sweeper. Sir, With reference to your letter No. ITI/Bhoranj/Trg/2009/47 dated 13.08.2009 on the subject cited above. In this connection, it is to intimate that after scrutiny of the documents as submitted by the Principal, Industricl Training Institute, Bhoranj District Hamipur, it has been found that sh. Vijay Kumar, Sweeper(Part-time) Industrial Training Institute, Bhoranj District Hamirpur has been engaged to the post of part-time sweeper without issuing any appointment order/letter. This is a serious matter. In view of above the service of sh. Vijay Kumar, Sweeper(Part-Time) is hereby terminated with immediate effect. Yours faithfully, For Director Technical Education. Vocational & Industrial Training Himachal Pradesh Sundernagar.” (emphasis supplied) 3. Quite apparently, petitioner’s service were terminated only for the reason that he was engaged as a part time Sweeper. Undisputedly, before passing the same, petitioner was not issued any show-cause notice or afforded opportunity to respond to the action contemplated by the parties. Surprisingly petitioner was allowed to continue on the post in question for more than nine years. This is quite evident from ground 10(ix) taken by the petitioner which in fact is admitted to be correct 4 by the respondents. As such, impugned order dated 10.9.2005 Annexure P-5 as also order dated 5.9.2009 are quashed. However, it shall be open for the respondent No.2 to take appropriate action against the petitioner but only in accordance with law. If it is ultimately found that petitioner is otherwise entitled to continue on the job he would be accorded all benefits of daily wager/regularisation but only in accordance with law and the policies framed by the Government from time to time. 4. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 29,2011 (Sanjay Karol),Judge. (Priti)