JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. Mr. P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16-7-1997 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner's services have been terminated. According to him, the order impugned could not have been passed without notice to the petitioner or notice pay in lieu thereof. The learned counsel further contends that the impugned order has been issued without application of mind by reason of the order dated 11-7-1997 which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Next contention raised by the learned counsel is that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of transfer of respondent no. 3, who happens to be a Sewika. According to him, Sewika cannot be posted as Mali, a post held by the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as Mali against permanent vacancy, therefore, his services cannot be terminated in the manner it has been done.
2. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, contends that from the material on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed against a permanent vacancy. The petitioner's appointment appears to have been made temporarily as leave arrangement for limited period, therefore the petitioner cannot claim that he has acquired a legal right on the basis thereof.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court desired learned Standing counsel to file counter affidavit, but on the basis of contentions raised and the materials produced, the court was not inclined to grant interim order. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the matter may be heard and disposed of finally have and now. Accordingly, the matter was heard and is being decided finally.
4. It appears from the perusal of the material produced particularly Annexure-2 that the petitioner was selected by a selection committee pursuant to an interview against vacant temporary post on leave arrangement. This was pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner to be a typing mistake. Zerox copy of the said document (Annexure-2) has also been produced which is taken on the record. After having perused, if appears that "Awakash Prabandh" was substituted in the place of "Rikt Pad." Therefore Annexure-2 which has been annexed to the writ petition, does not reproduce the correct position, On the other hand, from the Zerox copy, it appears that petitioner's appointment was made temporarily in leave arrangement. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stressed on the basis of subsequent letter dated 10-6-97, by which another appointment letter was issued, where It was pointed out that the petitioner is being placed on one year's probation against permanent vacancy, but the appointment was temporary till probation period. The selection having been made for being posted on temporary basis as leave arrangement, it is curious that the candidate so selected could be posted against a permanent vacancy. Since selection itself was not made in respect of permanent vacancies, it was not open to post the petitioner against a permanent vacancy particularly when the selection was made for the purpose of leave arrangement.
5. Then again from the impugned order dated 16-7-97 it appears that the termination was effected in view of order dated 11-7-1997 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In the said order, it has been pointed out that transfer order in respect of respondent No. 3 was forwarded before, then why the petitioner's appointment was made contrary to the said transfer order, therefore, he should submit a report en the question raised and said appointment should be cancelled. The manner in which the appointment was given, was contrary to the direction given to the Principal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of appointment was given on 19-6-1997 but the transfer order was dated 15-6-97. As rightly contended by learned Standing Counsel, that the said appointment was purported to have been given en 10-6-97 when the order of transfer was due on 15-6-97. It is known to all concerned that normally annual transfers are effected on or around 15th June. According to him, what prompted the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner against permanent vacancy on 10-6-97 when the said person was selected for temporary appointment against leave vacancy, is not known.
7. Therefore, it appears that there is something suspicious, for which learned Standing Counsel wanted time to file counter affidavit. However, since learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the matter may be disposed of, therefore, learned standing counsel is seriously disputing genuinness of the order contained in Annexure-3. Apart from communication dated 1-7-1997 contained in Annexure-5, it appears that the present principal had been pointing out that the petitioner was appointed by her predecessor in office. Thus, it is apparent that the Principal who had been leaving the office, had issued order dated 10-7-1997. Thus, on facts it is apparent that on the eve of laying down office, the outgoing Principal had taken such a drastic step which confirms the suspicion expressed by the learned Standing Counsel.
8. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot decide disputed questions of fact particularly when sufficient material is not placed and no opportunity was made available to learned Standing counsel for filing counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, it appears that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case that he has acquired a legal right enforceable in a writ petition particularly when there is a dispute between two orders contained in Annexure 2 & 3 to the writ petition.
9. So far as the question of transfer of a 'Sewika' against the post of Mali is concerned, in my view the same cannot be a sufficient ground for interference in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case that by virtue of his appointment he has acquired a legally enforceable right. The order of his appointment which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not conclusively prove that the petitioner could be so appointed permanently when he was selected against temporary leave arrangement.
10. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
11. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs,
12. After the above order is dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire controversy may be decided by the respondents, for which liberty may be granted to the petitioner to make a representation.
13. It is always open for the petitioner to make representation. It may, however, be observed that if such representation is filed, it would be open to the respondents to decide and dispose of the same according to law having regard to the records as early as possible.