Civil Writ Petition No. 4044 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Civil Writ Petition No. 4044 of 2011 Date of decision: March 7, 2011 Sukhdev Singh --- Petitioner Versus Kendriya Vidayalya Sangathan through Assistant Commissioner Chandigarh and others. --- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN --- Present: Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.2.1986, Annexure P-2, whereby his services were terminated and dated 28.2.1986, Annexure P-3, whereby he was relieved from service. As per averments in the petition, the petitioner on being sponsored through the Employment Exchange, was interviewed and on passing the typing test in English was appointed as Lower Division Clerk by the respondent-Vidayalya on 19.10.1985. His services were, however, terminated vide order dated 21.2.1986 and he was relieved from services vide order dated 28.2.1986. The petitioner served a legal notice dated Civil Writ Petition No. 4044 of 2011 2 4.6.1986 on the respondents, but having got no response approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh ( in short “the Tribunal”) but he was relegated to avail appropriate remedy on the ground that the Tribunal had got no jurisdiction. The petitioner filed writ petition in this court which was admitted but subsequently on the Tribunal acquiring jurisdiction, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal. The respondents clarified before the Tribunal by filing written statement that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis but his appointment was not approved by the competent authority on the ground that he had failed to qualify the requisite typing test which was one of the essential qualifications for the post to which he was appointed. The Tribunal dismissed the petition vide order dated 11.9.2009, which has been challenged by the petitioner by way of the present petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. A perusal of the proceedings of the committee of respondent-Vidayalya held on 19.10.1985, Annexure P-1 shows that the petitioner was selected as Lower Division Clerk whereas pursuant to letter dated 21.2.1986, Annexure P-2, to the Principal of the Kendriya Vidalaya No.4, Bhatinda written by the competent authority, it was intimated that the appointment of the petitioner had not been made in the manner prescribed and, thus, it was not possible to approve his appointment even on adhoc basis. In compliance to the said letter, the services of the petitioner were terminated and he was relieved from service vide order dated 28.2.1986, Annexure P-3. The Tribunal by its well-reasoned order did not accept the plea of the petitioner that the order terminating his Civil Writ Petition No. 4044 of 2011 3 services was wrong or illegal. It would be appropriate to note down here the observations of the Tribunal which would crystallize the whole position: “On consideration, we find that this case has no merit. From the facts we find that respondent No.2 had permitted the petitioner to join duty pending approval from the competent authority. This was so done despite the fact that the petitioner failed to qualify the requisite typing test. No orders of appointment, much less on regular basis as claimed by the petitioner, were issued. The competent authority did not accord approval and ordered termination of services of the petitioner and in compliance thereof, the services of the petitioner were terminated.” Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to dispute that no order of appointment on regular basis was ever issued to the petitioner. It was also not disputed by the counsel that the competent authority did not accord any approval for the appointment of the petitioner. In view of the above, we find that services of the petitioner were terminated in accordance with law. No illegality or perversity was shown so as to persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned orders. Dismissed in limine. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) March 7, 2011 JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No. 4044 of 2011 4 *rkmalik*