Delhi High Court
Shri Om Pal vs Delhi College Of Engineering & Ors on 30 March, 2012
Author: V. K. Jain
* 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:-
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
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
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
