CW 5207/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5207/2006 Narsi Ram Versus State & Anr. Date of Order ::: 16/01/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Ms Anisha Jain, for petitioner. Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel for respondents-State Instant petition has been filed assailing the order dt.05/06/06 (Ann.7) whereby services of petitioner were terminated from the cadre of Class IV despite he being substantively appointed after undergoing process of selection as provided under Rajasthan Class IV Servants (Recruitment & service Conditions) Rules, 1963 (“Rules, 1963”). Petitioner is a member of Other Backward Class (“OBC”). Indisputably, he was eligible for the post of Class IV, included in the Schedule appended to Rules, 1963. Two vacancies of Class IV were notified by respondent No.2 (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer vide advertisement dt.15/03/2000 (Ann.1) with the last date of submission of application as 15/04/2000. Applications received pursuant to Advertisement (Ann.1) were scrutinized and a committee was constituted to examine candidatures of all the applicants. On the CW 5207/06 //2// recommendation made by the Committee, petitioner being one of applicants duly recommended for selection, was appointed vide order dt. 25/04/2000 – in pursuance whereof, he joined the service as Class IV servant in the Tribunal on 25/04/2000. After having worked for almost six years, without due compliance of principles of natural justice, services of petitioner were terminated vide order dt.05/06/06 (Ann.7) allegedly on the premise that prior sanction/ approval from Finance Department was not obtained in terms of its Circular dt.10/06/99. Counsel for petitioner submits that indisputably the petitioner was appointed after having undergone process of selection under Rules, 1963 and his appointment was substantive; and merely because it was shown as an ad hoc/ temporary appointment, that could not have been considered to be temporary appointment; as such very action of respondents vide order impugned (Ann.7) in terminating his services treating his appointment purely as adhoc/temporary is not legally sustainable and even before passing impugned order (Ann.7), no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, in absence whereof action of respondents was in a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel CW 5207/06 //3// further submits that whether prior approval/ sanction from Finance Department was obtained even if as required in terms of Circular dt. 10/06/99 referred to it in the orders dt. 30/11/99 (Ann.AR/1) or dt.02/12/99 (Ann.AR/2), it was not within his purview to obtain but ultimately fact remained that once petitioner was appointed after following the procedure of selection under Rules, 1963, if an error being committed by appointing authority, that could not be considered to be a premise for terminating his services, inasmuch as such an approval/sanction could have been obtained by respondents at a later stage particularly when permanent vacancy in the cadre of Class IV after its due advertisement were filled in accordance with Scheme of Rules. In their reply, respondents inter-alia averred that petitioner could not have been appointed without seeking prior approval/ sanction from Finance Department – in absence whereof, order of appointment, itself was bad in law and even terminating his services after six years in no manner would confer any right in his favour. I have considered rival contention of Counsel for the parties and with their CW 5207/06 //4// assistance, pondered over material on record. In instant case, it stands clearly established that sanctioned post of Class IV cadre after its due advertisement and having undergone procedure of selection as provided under scheme of Rules, 1963 was filled vide order dt.25/04/2000 which certainly makes such appointment of petitioner as regular & substantive. It has been considered by this Court in RS Rawat Vs. State (1993(1) WLC Raj 97) in such like case and observed ad infra: “14. In the present case, it has clearly been established that a regular selection had been made by issue of advertisement inviting of applications and consideration of the candidature of all eligible persons by a duly constituted Selection Committee. It must therefore be held that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of lower Division Clerk was in the nature of regular and substantive appointment and the mere use of the word, “adhoc” or the mere fact that term of appointment was specified in Annexure-2 will make no difference.” Petitioner herein after having worked for almost six years on substantive appointment, his services have been terminated vide order impugned dt.05/06/06 (Ann.7), that too, without due compliance of principles of natural justice, which in no manner can be said to be legally CW 5207/06 //5// sustainable. If there was any procedural irregularity or error in his appointment order, due to having not taken prior approval/sanction from Finance Department but it was their internal arrangement made by State Government while making appointment against sanctioned posts in a cadre. If at all sanction/approval was not obtained by respondent NO.2 while initiating process of selection, that in no manner could have deprived the petitioner of a right having conferred upon his substantive appointment in the cadre of Class IV pursuant to advertisement (Ann.1) under Rules, 1963 and for meeting out their alleged procedural error committed by respondent No.2, ex post facto sanction could have been obtained/issued by Finance Department if required under law; and certainly in the opinion of this Court, terminating services of petitioner after six years in no manner can be said to be justified. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dt.dt.05/06/06 (Ann.7) is quashed & set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service alongwith consequential benefits flowing therefrom. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/5207CW06-16Jn.doc