IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20198 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 23, 2009 Hari Om Kapil .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 17.6.2005 (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was appointed vide Order, Annexure P-1. It is only on account of family circumstances that the petitioner could not attend duty. An equitable view is required to be taken. I have considered the contention of learned counsel. CWP No.20198 of 2009 [2] On perusal of Annexure P-1, it transpires that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on compassionate ground on the post of Clerk, in Government of Punjab, Directorate of Ayurvedic Department, Chandigarh. Order Annexure P-1 makes it amply clear that the appointment was on temporary basis and there is no contract of permanent service. It further makes it evident that the services could be terminated by giving one month advance notice without stating any reason. It transpires that the petitioner joined on 9.6.2004, however, went absent without sanctioned leave on 31.1.2005. The department issued letter dated 18.2.2005 instructing the petitioner to come present on duty immediately. The petitioner did not join duty. The petitioner was again instructed to come present within a period of seven days vide communication dated 11.3.2005. The petitioner, however, remained absent without sanctioned leave and only contended that his mother-in-law was ill, therefore, he could not come to join duty. Vide communication dated 11.4.2005, the petitioner was asked to furnish medical certificate in support of the reason for absence. Again communication dated 2.5.2005 was sent in CWP No.20198 of 2009 [3] the same regard. The petitioner, however, did not furnish any proof in regard to ailment of his mother-in-law. Considering temporary nature of appointment and the service of the petitioner being not satisfactory, the petitioner has been discharged from service. No ground for judicial review, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is made out. The petitioner was admittedly serving on temporary post. His services, as per condition of appointment, could be terminated any time. Admittedly, the petitioner went absent w.e.f. 31.1.2005 till passing of impugned order without sanctioned leave. The petitioner admittedly was given repeated opportunities to either join duty or else to produce evidence to substantiate genuine reason for absence. The petitioner neither joined duty nor even produced medical certificate of the mother-in-law. In the above circumstances and in view of conduct of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to equitable relief. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) December 23, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? CWP No.20198 of 2009 [4] 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?