* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 27.03.2012
Judgment pronounced on: 30.03.2012
+ W.P.(C) 7127/2001
SHRI OM PAL ..... Petitioner
versus
DELHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Singh, Adv.
For Respondents : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. with Ms. Latika Choudhary
and Ms. Shubham Mahajan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.05.2001 in OA No.1371/2001, order dated 18.02.2000 in OA No.1810/99 and the order dated 21.09.2001 in RA No.290/2001 in OA No.1371/2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi.
The facts giving rise to the filing of the OA can be summarized as under:- WPC 7127/2001 Page 1 of 4 The petitioner was appointed as a safai karmachari with respondent No.1 vide office order No.1/1991 dated 8.01.1991. Vide order dated 05.03.1999 purporting to be passed in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service), Rules, (1965), respondent No.1 terminated the service of the petitioner. The petitioner filed OA 1810/1999 seeking declaration as a quasi permanent employee and also sought quashing of the order whereby his services were terminated. The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.02.2000 noted that Rule 2 (b) and 3 on which reliance was placed by the petitioner in support of his claim for being declared as a quasi permanent employee had been deleted vide gazette notification dated 11.03.1989 and accordingly dismissed the OA. OA No.1371/2000 was then filed by the petitioner again challenging the order dated 05.02.1999 whereby his services were terminated. The OA was dismissed vide order 4.05.2001 being barred by principles of res judicata. RA 290/2001 was then filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 4.05.2001 passed in OA 1871/2000. The review application was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2001.
2. It is not in dispute that Rule 2(b) and 3 of CCS (Temporary Services), Rules 1965 were deleted vide Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, Notification No.12011/3/88 Estt.(c) dated 22.02.1989 published as GSR WPC 7127/2001 Page 2 of 4 No.145 in the Gazette of India dated 11.03.1989 and the deletion came into effect from that very date. Therefore, the case of petitioner for declaration as a quasi permanent employee, passed upon the aforesaid deleted rules, is wholly misplaced.
3. A perusal of the office memorandum No.F-121/269/90/E-11/14974 dated 29.10.1998, whereby the petitioner was appointed as a safai karmachari would show that the appointment was, inter-alia, subject to the following conditions:-
"1. The appointment will be made on temporary basis until further orders.
2. He will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment on regular basis.
3. The appointment may be terminated at any time by one month's notice given by either side, viz. the appointee or the Appointing Authority without assigning any reason. The appointing authority however, reserves the right of terminating the services the right of terminating the service of the employee forth-with or before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowance for the period of notice of the unexpired portion thereof."
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being on probation for one year and the probation having not been terminated at any point of time before issuance of the order dated 5.03.1999 whereby his services were terminated, be deemed to have successfully completed the period of probation and as having been confirmed to the post of safai karmachari. We find WPC 7127/2001 Page 3 of 4 the arguments to be wholly misconceived for the simple reason that as per clause 1(2) of the aforesaid office memorandum, the period of probation was to begin from the date of appointment of the petitioner on regular basis and admittedly no order has been issued by the respondent appointing the petitioner to the post of safai karmachari on a regular basis.
5. Since the petitioner was never appointed on regular basis, his appointment continues to be temporary and consequently it could be terminated at any point of time after giving one month's notice, without assigning any reason.
6. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order dated 5.03.1999, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed without any costs.
V.K.JAIN, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MARCH 30, 2012 rb WPC 7127/2001 Page 4 of 4