Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 84 (RAJ)

Rajender Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2000-01-25

ASHOK PARIHAR

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was initially appointed purely on contract basis as Driver under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorbtion of Ex-Service Personnels) Rules, 1959 vide order dated 20.4.1990. However, the above order of appointment was cancelled just after five days vide order dated 25.4.1990. The order of cancellation is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed on 14.5.1990. While issuing the notices to the respondents, this court vide interim order dated 21.5.1990 directed the respondents to keep one post vacant. However, time was sought by the respondents to file tepid as such and the court vide another order dated 23.8.1990 stayed the operation of the impugned order and directed the respondent to continue the petitioner on the post of Driver. Further in absence of any reply on behalf of the respondents the above interim order was confirmed vide order dated 11.3.1991. The petitioner is continuing in service till date in pursuance to the orders passed by this court, as referred above. 3. As is evident from the order of appointment itself, it was purely a contractual appointment under special Rules made for absorption of ex-service personnels. There i a procedure prescribed under the Rules of of 1959 with regard to appointment and its tenure. Be that as it may, since it was a pure contractual appointment : the petitioner has worked for more than 10 years in pursuance to the interim order passed by this court. I am of the opinion that no further interference is called for by this court in the present matter, moreso, in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Director, Institute of Management Development U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070 and Hindustan Education Society v. S.K. Kalee 1997(5) SCC 152 . 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, since the petitioner has already served for more than 10 years beyond his terms of so contract, no recovery be made from the petitioner of the amount already paid to him.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******