AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the order, dated 29.12.2005 terminating the services of the Petitioner, with a consequential prayer of reinstatement.
The pleaded case of the Petitioner is that he is having qualification of M.A., M.Ed., and in addition has undergone Post-Graduate Diploma in Rehabilitation Management.
That the Government of India in the interest of welfare of the society and in order to implement various social welfare programmes constituted Jan Shikshan Sansthan. The object of the programme was to develop the rural and urban India people, specially who are living in below the poverty line, for improving their occupational skills and technical knowledge.
It is the submission of the Petitioner that Jan Shikshan Sansthan is fully funded by Government of India and therefore, it is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The post of Director was advertised and the Petitioner applied. The Petitioner was interviewed on 11.06.2005, and appointed on contract for a period one year at a fixed salary of Rs. 18,000/- [Rupees Eighteen thousand only].
The case of the Petitioner is that the Secretary and the Chairman of the Jan Shikshan Sansthan are to hold office, at the pleasure of Government. The final authority of running of Jan Shikshan Sansthan is that of the Government.
The case of the Petitioner is that he was performing his duties to the complete satisfaction of higher authorities, but was terminated without getting approval of the Central Government.
It is contended that the order of termination was passed in violating the principles of natural justice, as No. notice was issued to the Petitioner. It is also contended that No. enquiry was held before terminating the services of the Petitioner.
The writ petition is opposed by the Respondent, on the ground that the Petitioner has No. cause of action to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, as the Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for a period of one year, as per the terms of appointment.
It is also the contention of the Respondent that there is No. statutory rule governing the service condition of the Petitioner. The service of the Petitioner was governed by in terms of the appointment order, which gave power to the Respondent to terminate the services of the Petitioner by giving three months notice or salary in lieu thereof.
It is the case of the Respondent that the permanent employee holding a post for number of years can only question, the clause in appointment letter giving authority to employer to terminate the services by giving notice, but said rule of law does not apply to contractual appointment for a fixed period, in absence of any statutory protection.
It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has received salary for notice period. The order of termination stands accepted by the Petitioner.
The order now has been challenged, only on the ground that prior approval of the Government was required. This contention on the face is misconceived, as according to contract of appointment, there is No. such stipulation, nor the Central Government can be said to be the appointing authority of the Petitioner. Merely because, Chairman and Secretary of the Society are to hold office at the pleasure of Central Government.
Keeping in view of the fact that it is only the Secretary and Chairman of the Jan Shikshan Sansthan, who are to work at the pleasure of the Government and not the Petitioner. It is also well settled law that the contract of personnel services cannot be specifically enforced.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not able to show the violation of any statutory rule or Regulation. The plea that the order is mala-fide deserves to be noticed to be rejected, for the reason that there the person against whom the mala-fide are alleged is party in this petition. In the absence of the party against whom mala-fide are alleged, the allegations cannot be looked into.
As already observed that the contract of personnel service cannot be enforced. The remedy if any with the Petitioner is to claim the damages for breach of contract of service but termination cannot be challenged by way of writ.
Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit ordered to be dismissed. No. costs.