IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.26529 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.JAYASWAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O.CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA RENUKA COLONY, THARIKERE TALUK CHIKMAGALORE DISTRICT PIN- 577 228 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.H.MALATESH, ADV.) AND:
1. DISTRICT TUBERCULLOSIS CONTROLLING OFFICER (T.B.CENTRE) ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHIKMAGALORE PIN- 577 101 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHIKMAGALORE PIN- 577 101 3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY DISTRICT HEALTH & WEFARE ASSOCIATION, T.B.DIVISION CHIKMAGALORE PIN-577 101 4. DISTRICT HEALTH & WELFARE OFFICER, NEAR ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHIKMAGALORE PIN- 577 101 5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR TUBERCULLUSIS DMHS CAMPUS SULTHAN BAZAR ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA BENGALURU-560027 6. SRI.KRISHNA MOORTHY H.K. S/O.KULLAPPA ADARSHA NAGARA MUDIGERE ROAD CHIKMAGALORE PIN- 577 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ASHOK N.NAYAK, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-4 SRI.SREEDHAR N.HEGDE, HCGP FOR R-5 SRI.J.D.KASHINATH RAMESHAPPA N.G., ADV. FOR R-6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER TO TERMINATION OF PETITIONERS APPOINTMENT AND ORDER OF RELIEVING HIM FROM SERVICE DATED: 25.04.2016 PASSED BY R-3 AT ANNX-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the order of termination dated 25.4.2016 and selection and appointment of 6th respondent dated 23.5.2017 (Annexures – A and G ) respectively to the post of Supervisor under a scheme called National Program for Controlling Tuberculosis.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor on 31.4.2016. Due to some administrative reasons, petitioner’s services are terminated on 25.4.2016. In order to rectify the error stated to have been committed while appointing the petitioner, it was re-notified on 10.2.2017. Pursuant to the 2nd notification, 6th respondent was appointed as a Supervisor. In this background, petitioner has questioned, the validity of the termination order and order of appointment of the 6th respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though appointment of the petitioner as a Supervisor is an adhoc basis, his services have been terminated abruptly without issuing notice appointment is for a period of one year. Learned counsel the petitioner submitted that adhoc employee cannot be replaced by another adhoc employee and it is impermissible. In support of this contention, he has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others etc., Vs. Piara Singh and others etc., reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130 (Para No.25).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the petitioner’s contention.
Official-respondent pointed out that certain Government orders were not taken into consideration when petitioner was appointed. In order to rectify and carry out the Government directions petitioner’s services were terminated and further proceeded to re-notify the post of appointment of 6th respondent. Hence, no interference is called.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. No doubt, petitioner was appointed on Adhoc basis on 13.4.2017 and his services were terminated within ten days on 25.4.2016. Petitioner should have rushed to the Court seeking relief. But there is a delay of nearly one year two months in not approaching this Court. Petitioner has approached this Court only as and when consequent notification was proceeded and to fill up the post. Petitioner has not questioned the validity of notification dated 10.2.2017 and what has been questioned is 6th respondent appointment and his termination. In the matters like selection and appointment, even in respect of adhoc appointment, candidate must be alert in approaching appropriate Forum within a reasonable period of three months. In the present case, if the official-respondents have not filled up the post, then there would have been some interference in respect of termination dated 25.4.2016. After termination of petitioner’s service much development has taken place in respect of re-notifying the post and appointment of the 6th respondent.
7. In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of termination and 6th respondent’s appointment. The cited decision no doubt applicable in respect of replacing an adhoc appointee, having regard to the delay in questioning the order of termination petitioner has not made out a case. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE BS