JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who is an ex-employee of the Revenue Department of the State of Rajasthan (office of Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur) (respondent No. 2) has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that he was appointed as driver w.e.f. 1.3.1990 on temporary basis in the office of respondent No. 2 and he discharged his duties on the said post till 1.9.1993, when his services were terminated under the verbal order by the said respondent. He was paid his salary on daily wage basis through muster-rolls. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of regularising his services after having served the department for a period of over three years, there was no justification to terminate his services by a verbal order of the then Additional Commissioner (Settlement), Jaipur, whereas in-fact the petitioner had marked his attendance in the muster rolls, maintained in the office of the said respondent up-to 3.9.1993. 3. It has further been contended by the petitioner that thereafter he was not allowed to discharge his duties in the office of the said respondent nor he was allowed to mark his attendance register and on account of which he made a representation dated 4.9.1993 to respondent No. I vide (Annexure-2). The petitioner has further assailed the validity of the oral impugned order of termination dated 3.9.1993 on the ground that while one Lakhan Singh Meena, who was also appointed as a Driver on daily wage basis w.e.f. 1.5.1993 along with the petitioner and is continuing in the office of respondent No. 2 till date, the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with without any justification on the record and this has resulted in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. He has further contended that he had a right to be regularised in service and there was no prima-facie reason or justification in terminating his services. He has further stated that admittedly when junior person is continuing in service as a Driver, the question of non-availability of vacant post would not arise on this ground alone, therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated in service. In the premises, the petitioner has consequently sought the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service besides back wages and other benefits. 4. In the premises, the petitioner has consequently sought the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service besides back wages and other benefits. 4. The respondents on being noticed by this Court have controverted the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner on the grounds inter-alia that the petitioner had never been appointed by issuance of any appointment order nor any joining report was obtained from the petitioner. 5. During the course of hearing this Court was informed that it is the practice prevalent in the Department of the Settlement Commissioner to appoint daily wagers by verbal orders as and when the exigencies of the work may so require and as such no orders in writing are issued at the time of their appointments and likewise when their services are dispensed with by the department, no formal orders of termination in writing are conveyed to the said employees because of the prevalent practice to appoint the employees by oral orders in the office of respondent No. 2 as so stated by the learned counsel for the respondents. Since the petitioner was a muster roll employee appointed as a daily wager, any formal order terminating his services was not issued. 6. The writ petition was admitted for hearing on 23.9.1993 and notice to show cause was issued to the respondents. On 11.1.1994, when the matter was taken up by this Court, the learned Additional G.A. for the State had stated that since the services of the petitioner were not found satisfactory, the same were terminated by the respondents but at the same time, the department was ready to produce the service record of the petitioner f6r perusal of this Court and for which two weeks' time was sought for doing the needful. The learned Single Judge of this Court accordingly granted two weeks' time to the respondents for making available the service record of the petitioner on the next date. On 3.5.1996, when the matter was taken up again by this Court, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents and the matter was again adjourned to 16.5.1996 with a direction to the learned counsel for the respondents to keep ready to the relevant record as directed on 11.1.1994. On 3.5.1996, when the matter was taken up again by this Court, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents and the matter was again adjourned to 16.5.1996 with a direction to the learned counsel for the respondents to keep ready to the relevant record as directed on 11.1.1994. On 16.5.1996, when the matter was again taken-up this Court, the service record of the petitioner was not made available and the learned Single Judge of this Court again adjourned the matter to 8.7.1996 with the expectation and hope that the service record of the petitioner shall be made available by the respondents on the next date. Thereafter on 8.7.1996 none appeared for the respondents and the matter was again adjourned for four weeks. 7. In the manner precious time of this Court has been lost on account of the repeated adjournments having been sought by the learned counsel for the respondents for making the service record of the petitioner available but on the pretext or the other repeated adjournments were sought for by the respondents and yet they failed to produce the service record. 8. Even today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, the service record, pertaining to the petitioner's case has not been made available for perusal of this Court and rather an attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to get the matter adjourned without making the service record available for perusal of the Court. 9. It is indeed unfortunate and speaks volumes about the behaviour and conduct of the office-in-charge of the case representing respondent No. 2, who was entrusted with the responsibility to give proper instructions to the learned counsel for the respondents to assist the Court in a proper manner. 10. I have examined the reply filed by the respondents but unfortunately no assistance has been conveyed by the representative of the respondent and even the officer-in charge Sh. 10. I have examined the reply filed by the respondents but unfortunately no assistance has been conveyed by the representative of the respondent and even the officer-in charge Sh. Om Prakash Gupta, the then Assistant Accounts Officer, Settlement Department, Jaipur, who was entrusted with the responsibility to assist the Court is not present today from which the only inference, which can be drawn by this Court is the deliberate lapse on the part of the said official of the Settlement Department, Jaipur and rather in my view the said officer should be hauled-up for Contempt of Court and should be held accountable for non-compliance with the aforesaid directions of this Court, which have resulted in enormous delay in dispensation of justice. 11. Perusal of the reply filed by the respondents reveals that there is no specific denial with regard to the petitioner's contention made in para-5 of the writ petition that the petitioner had worked continuously for a period of three years w.e.f. 1.3.1990 to 3.9.1993 when his services were terminated by the respondents by an oral order. In their reply the respondents have simply stated that since the petitioner was kept on daily wage basis and when required by the Department for casual work and since his work was not found satisfactory, the services of the petitioner were terminated. This is not the manner in which the reply should have been drafted by the respondent and I am of the view that the learned counsel for the respondents was also helpless in not drafting a proper reply to the writ petition on account of lack of proper instructions, not conveyed to the learned counsel by the then Office-in Charge of respondent No. 2, who was entrusted with the responsibility to properly instruct the learned counsel for the respondents, on account of which many adjournments were repeatedly sought by the learned counsel for the respondents as referred to above and despite several opportunities having been granted to the respondents, the respondents had failed to produce the summoned records before this Court. 12. Even today an attempt has been made by Mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to seek adjournment on the ground that the summoned record could not be produced before this court since the matter has beer suddenly notified in the cause list. 13. 12. Even today an attempt has been made by Mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to seek adjournment on the ground that the summoned record could not be produced before this court since the matter has beer suddenly notified in the cause list. 13. In fact the matter was mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner on an urgent slip and it is only thereafter that the matter was listed for hearing and taken up by this Court today. In the cause list the matter was listed as item No. 3 in the supplementary list and the name of Mr. Bhandari has been duly shown in the cause list. 14. In my view this itself would be no ground for adjournment again because when the department had failed to produce the summoned file on several occasions in the past, it will not improve the case of the respondents even if yet another adjournment is granted to the respondent. 15. Prima-facie, I am of the view that the appointment of the petitioner was through back door entry in absence of sanctioned posts for Class-IV employees and moreover the name of the petitioner was not sponsored through any of the Employment Exchanges nor his appointment was made in the office of respondent No. 2 on the basis of due advertisement of the posts of Drivers. 16. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents has also not supported the case of the Department to the extent that the appointment of the Class-IV employees in the manner in which it has been done in this case deserves any appreciation since the normal rules of procedure were given a total good-bye by the Department concerned in having made the appointments of the petitioner and of other candidates. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the respondents either regarding the mode and manner of appointment of the petitioner nor regarding the total length of service rendered by the petitioner to the respondents, which fact could only be verified from the records, which too have not been made available for perusal of this court even today or on the previous occasions as referred to above. 17. 17. I am thus of the view that this approach of the respondents deserves to be deprecated in strongest terms since no formal letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner at the time of his initial entry in services of respondent No. 2, and the obvious inference, which emerges from the above discussion is that it's case of back door entry in absence of sanctioned posts, which were neither advertised nor the names were sponsored through the Employment Exchange and the respondents were not justified in making appointment either of the petitioner or other similarly placed employees in this manner and which was in gross violation of the Rules. 18. I am fortified in my observations from the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ashwini Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & ors. reported in J.T. 1997 (1) S.C. page 243 : [1996(7) SLR 15 (SC)] , wherein similar controversy had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court. The mode of appointment of atleast 6,000 employees of Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme was in question before the Apex Court. Since such appointments were made by the Health Department of the Bihar contrary to the recognised recruitment procedures, the same were quashed and set-aside by the Apex Court as being not binding on the State of Bihar. It was further held by the Apex Court that in absence of the vacancies, against which such appointments could be regularised, there could not be any exercise in regulation of their appointments since their very initial entries in Tuberculosis Department of the State were held illegal and vitiated. It was further held that even training imparted o the said employees by the respective department would not improve their position in service. 19. It was further held that even training imparted o the said employees by the respective department would not improve their position in service. 19. In my view the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is fully attracted to this case since when no sanctioned posts (class IV) were available with the office of Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur on the relevant date when the petitioner was appointed i.e. on 1.3.1990 and any evidence in this regard has not been produced before this Court by the respondents, the question of either regularising the services of the petitioner or of any other such candidate, who was so appointed along with the petitioner on the said date would not arise and since the initial entry of the petitioner as well as of any other candidate, who was so appointed was ex-facie and illegal, the question of regularisation of services of the petitioner or any other similarly placed candidates would not arise. 20. I am further of the opinion that once an illegality has been committed by any functionary of the State by making illegal appointments through back door entries without following the due process of law, the said illegality should not be allowed, to be perpetuated by this Court since the same would be contrary to law, justice, equity and fair play. 21. Consequently I find no reason to draw any contrary view of the matter keeping in view the fact that since the initial entry of the petitioner in services of respondent No. 2 was itself illegal, the question of either regularisation of the service of the petitioner or his reinstatement in services of the respondent No. 2 would not arise. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a daily wager looking to the exigencies of the work by the respondent No. 2 and this fact has not been disputed in the reply filed by the respondents to the writ petition. 22. However, the respondents have stated that since the petitioner was not working against a regular post, the question of regularising his services would not arise. 23. As a result of the above discussion, I am of the view that petitioner has no locus standi to assail his termination from service and as such the writ petition deserves to Le dismissed by this Court. 24. 23. As a result of the above discussion, I am of the view that petitioner has no locus standi to assail his termination from service and as such the writ petition deserves to Le dismissed by this Court. 24. I am further of the view that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the office-in-charge, who was entrusted with the responsibility of this case deserves to be deprecated and a regular departmental enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent officials of respondent No. 2 and the accountability of the said delinquent officials be fixed in accordance with law and the said inquiry should be initiated immediately on receipt of certified copy of his order by the officer not below the rank of Secretary of the concerned Department. The departmental enquiry should be initiated within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the same shall stand concluded within a period of four weeks thereafter. The result of the enquiry should also be conveyed to this Court thereafter. 25. The Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order without process fee to the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 2) for immediate compliance. 26. With the above observations the writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******