IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 2082 of 2008. Reserved on: 04.10.2010. Decided on: 19.10.2010. _____________________________________________________ M.S. Verma. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondents No. 2 and 3. : Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate. None for respondent No. 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature to the post of Accountant/Auditor on 24.09.1977. In sequel thereto, the petitioner was offered appointment on 04.10.1977. His services were terminated on 11.03.1980. He has assailed the order dated 11.03.1980 by filing C.W.P. No. 47 of 1980 in this Court, which was transferred to the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 379 of 1986. The same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 21.08.1991 by treating the petition as appeal/representation to the Secretary (Industries), Government 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. of Himachal Pradesh, who was directed to decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in person, through notice. In sequel thereto, the Financial Commissioner- Cum-Secretary (Industries), Government of Himachal Pradesh rejected the appeal/representation on 10.08.1992. 2. Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the termination of the petitioner and the order dated 10.08.1992, passed by the Financial Commissioner- Cum-Secretary (Industries), Government of Himachal Pradesh are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that the termination of the petitioner is not in accordance with Section 13(3) of the H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1966 read with Regulations 3(4) and 3(6) of the H.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board Regulations, 1970. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 have strenuously argued that the appointment of the petitioner to the post in question was not in accordance with law. They contended that the post was never advertised and the appointment has been made merely on the basis of the orders passed by the then Chairman without complying with the codal formalities. They further contended that the petitioner was over age at the time of his appointment and no relaxation was ever approved by the competent authority. They also contended that the approval of the State Government was not obtained before appointing the petitioner. They finally contended that the appointment of the petitioner was merely on adhoc basis and the termination of the petitioner, in these circumstances, is legal and valid. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has been appointed as Accountant on adhoc basis on 04.10.1977 on the basis of application dated 24.09.1977. The post in question was never advertised. Petitioner was real nephew of the then Chairman. He was over- age at the time of his appointment. He has no training in accounts while working in Co-operative & Supplies Department. He was appointed without seeking the prior approval of the State Government. The Court is of the considered opinion that the post in question ought to have been advertised in accordance with law and the requisition was required to be sent to the employment exchanges. The same was also required to be advertised in leading news papers. The petitioner has been appointed though he was not well conversant with the accounts work. He has been appointed merely being the nephew of the Chairman. It was necessary for the Board to get the prior approval from the State Government in view of Section 13(3) of the H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1966 read with Regulations 3(4) and 3(6) of the H.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board Regulations, 1970. He was over-age at the time of his appointment. There is nothing on record to suggest that the State Government has given relaxation. The then Chairman has passed the following order on 28.09.1977: “Being an experienced man may be appointed on adhoc basis as accountant” 6. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned counsel for the petitioner that his client got confirmed automatically after three years. The petitioner has been appointed on ad hoc basis. He was never appointed on permanent basis. The Regulations talks of only permanent or temporary vacancy. In the case of persons appointed against permanent post, there is a provision for probation and the persons appointed on temporary basis are required to be put on trial. In view of this, the petitioner could not be deemed to have been confirmed automatically. The appointment of the petitioner was void abinitio. In these circumstances, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the issuance of letter dated 11.03.1980 and order dated 10.08.1992. Moreover, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner-Cum-Secretary (Industries), Government of Himachal Pradesh is a speaking and detailed order. The contentions raised by the petitioner before him have been duly considered. The Chairman of the respondent-Board was not competent to appoint the petitioner without the prior sanction of the State Government, as envisaged under Section 13(3) of the H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1966 read with Regulations 3(4) and 3(6) of the H.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board Regulations, 1970. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge October 19, 2010. (bhupender)