@> HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BBLASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) a) Writ Petition No. 332 of 2605 FEW-”ON ER NarendravPrasad Tiwari VERSUS REsPONDENT State of MP. and others. Shri B.D. Guru counsei for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj GA for the resspondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O R D E R (02.07.2009) By this petition the petitioner is ohaiienging the order dated 9.11.1900 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 - Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Ambikapur by which his services were i terminated consequent to the order dated 3.11.1990 passed by respondent No.2 —- Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Bilaspur Division, Biiaspur. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 1.9.1984 issued by respondent No.3 - Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Ambikapur, the petitioner was appointed on temporary contingency basis on the post of Vaccinator. According to him, on 1.3.1985 the petitioner feii sick and after submitting an application for grant of leave, he left for his village for treatment. lt is submitted that on 25.3.1 985 the petitioner went to resume his duties but he was not aliowed by the respondent No.4 to join. On 24.4.2005 the petitioner approached respondent No.3 with a request that respondent No.4 may be directed to permit him to join his duties. Case of the petitioner is that after much persistence he was re-appointed on 177.1990 on the post of Vaccinator and in ({‘x ’ compliance with the said order he gave his joining on 23.7.1990. It is further submitted that vide order dated 3.11.1990 passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.3 was directed to terminate the services of the petitioner and accordingly his services were terminated by the order impugned dated 9.1 1.1990. Contention of the counsei for the petitioner is that termination of the petitioner has been passed without assigning any reaeon and without giving any opportunity as he was working against a vacant post and therefore the same is iiabie to be quashed. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/State submits that very appointment of the petitioner was casuai in nature and it was passed without issuing any advertisement, without following the ruies nor was it under any constitutional scheme. He submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Secreary, State of Karnatka v. Lima Devi and others 1 the petitioner has no case whatsoever. On facts, he further submits that the petitioner has never reported on duty on 25.3.1985 as ciaimed by him and ultimately the empioyer had no option but to terminate the services of the petitioner. As regards re—appointment of the petitioner, he submits that respondent No.3 had inadvertentiy issued the said order inm favour of the petitioner and as soon as respondent No.2 who was the immediate superior authority of respondent No.3 came to know about the same, he rectified the mistake. He submits that even the re- appointment does not give right to the petitioner to remain in job. After hearing counsei for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary contingency basis and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court cited above, this Court of the View that the petition has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. it is acoordingiy dismissed} ‘a am r Sd/- Pritinker Diwa feet; i Judge i (zoos) 4 soc 1