S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1483/1995 Daleep Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 11.02.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.R.P.Garg for petitioner. Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma for respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.03.1995 (Annexure/7) whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Fireman on the ground that the government sanction for his appointment was not taken, therefore, his appointment is irregular appointment. In the writ petition, this Court has passed an interim order on 17.04.1995 and the same was confirmed on 19.08.1996. The submission of Mr. R.P.Garg, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner name was summon from employment exchange and his selections are held after following the due process of law. He further submits that according to the staffing pattern there are 8 sanction posts of Fireman, out of which the Government has granted sanction for appointment of two posts only. Otherwise also the sanction of the Government for filling the post is not mandatory and ex facto sanction - 2 - could have also been taken because the posts were lying vacant. He also submits that the petitioner is continuing in the service since 18.08.1988 i.e. his first date of appointment and now, he has completed more than 20 years of service. Counsel for the Municipality submits that since the sanction for two posts only, therefore, they could have filled up two posts only. Even if, for some administrative reason, the sanction of the Government is necessary then the Municipality ought to have moved for ex facto sanction. But nothing is available on record for moving of the same. As regard, the position of the rule, there is no mandatory requirement of prior sanction of the Government for filling the post. The State Government is also a party, but no reply has been filed. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. The Municipal Board being a local-self Government had rightly initiated the process of selection and submit the list to the State Government. - 3 - In view of the above, the respondents have acted arbitrarily in terminating the services of the petitioner, the termination order is liable to be quashed being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 18.03.1995 (Annexure/7) is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to be continue in service and will also be entitled for all consequential benefits. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA),J. Gandhi H/7