Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.133 of 1987
Petitioner: Pritam Singh
Respondent: State of Punjab & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.133 of 1987
Judges: O.CHINNAPPA REDDY & S.NATARAJAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 19, 1987
Head Note:
CIVIL SERVICE
Ad-hoc appointment in temporary vacancy – Services terminated on the availability of a regular hand – As appellant was not appointed in any vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen, the instruction contained in letter No.273 dated June2, 1973 does not apply.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant was appointed as Section Officer on an ad-hoc basis in temporary vacancy for a period of three months. The order for appointment also states that his services would be terminated earlier if a regular hand became available. When the regular hand became available, the service of the appellant were terminated. He questions the order of termination on the ground that he could only be replaced by another person belonging to ex-servicemen’s category and since that was not done his appointment should be continued. The basis for the argument is Letter No. 273 dated June 2, 1973 and a line in the counter filed in the High Court where it appears to be mentioned that he was appointed against the vacancy of ex-servicemen. It was obviously a mistake since we find that it has been asserted and repeated that he was not appointed in any vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen. The letter of appointment issued to the appellant does not say that he was appointed in an ex-servicemen’s vacancy. If he was not appointed in a vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen the instruction contained in letter No. 273 dated June 2, 1973 does not apply. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
1. The appellant was appointed as Section Officer on an ad-hoc basis in temporary vacancy for a period of three months. The order for appointment also states that his services would be terminated earlier if a regular hand became available. When the regular hand became available, the service of the appellant were terminated. He questions the order of termination on the ground that he could only be replaced by another person belonging to ex-servicemen’s category and since that was not done his appointment should be continued. The basis for the argument is Letter No. 273 dated June 2, 1973 and a line in the counter filed in the High Court where it appears to be mentioned that he was appointed against the vacancy of ex-servicemen. It was obviously a mistake since we find that it has been asserted and repeated that he was not appointed in any vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen. The letter of appointment issued to the appellant does not say that he was appointed in an ex-servicemen’s vacancy. If he was not appointed in a vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen the instruction contained in letter No. 273 dated June 2, 1973 does not apply. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
