CW 1832/2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1832/2000 Gopi Nath Sharma Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 31/03/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. D.P. Sharma, for petitioner Mr. Vijay Dutt, Dy.G.A., for State *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that while he was working as Driver on contract basis without assigning any reason, his services have been terminated by the respondents. Petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Driver initially on his application [Ann.4] for a period of three months on 13th May, 1996. His contract, as is evident from order-sheet placed on record which is a part of Ann.4, was extended from time to time and as per last order-sheet of 6th May, 1997, his period was extended for four months. Since his contractual service was not extended, he approached this court by filing instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that before dispensing with his service, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and terminating his service in such a manner is clearly arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred that it is a pure contractual appointment made on his CW 1832/2000 [2] application on the post of Driver @ Rs.1200/- per month on 13th May, 1996 which was extended from time to time. But, since looking to financial condition of Municipality, it was not possible to ply the vehicle and accordingly, resolution was passed to auction the vehicle itself. It has also been averred that petitioner never faced any mode of selection provided under the Rules, 1963 and as such, no right is otherwise conferred upon him. I have heard counsel for parties and with their assistance examined the material on record. Post of Driver is included in the Scheduled appended to Rajasthan Municipalities Subordinate and Ministerial Service Rules, 1963 which as per Rule 8 is to be filled in the ratio of 1:1 by direct recruitment/promotion and so far as promotion quota is concerned, Cleaner is a feeder post. Petitioner never held the post of Cleaner. So far as direct recruitment is concerned, procedure has been provided under Part IV of the scheme of rules. Undisputedly, petitioner has not faced mode of recruitment which is provided under the scheme of rules. Ann.4 is his own application being unemployed requested to consider for contractual appointment and accordingly, offered appointment for three months on pure contractual basis which was extended from time to time - last extension was for four months as is evident from order-sheet of 6th May, 1997 and even thereafter, he has worked for sometime on contract basis, which does not confer any right in favour of petitioner. CW 1832/2000 [3] So far as submission made with regard to denial of principles of natural justice is concerned, suffice it to say that there is no right eitherway conferred and appointment was purely on contract basis which was not extended by the employer after expiry of contractual period. Principles of natural justice has no application, particularly, when contract has came to end on expiry of contractual period. Petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA1832CW2000 31-3.doc