A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.10.2009, whereby the services of the petitioner are terminated.

2. The brief facts of present petition are as under:-

The petitioner was appointed by the order dated 28.10.2004 as Safai Kamdar on contractual basis for a period of 11 months. Thereafter, his service was extended time and again till the passage of impugned order.

3. Mr.Pradeep Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order of termination dated 13.10.2009 is passed dehors the condition contained in the appointment order dated 28.10.2004. He has stated that no notice or notice pay was given to the petitioner before terminating the petitioner from the service. Thus, the respondent authority has violated condition no.2 of the appointment order dated 28.10.2004.

4. Mr. Patel, learned advocate has also drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in affidavit in reply, wherein he pointed out that there are three reasons of termination of services i.e. he remained absent, his services were not required and indiscipline on the part of the petitioner.

5. He has stated that the order dated 13.10.2009 does not bear any signature of the petitioner. Since, he had apprehended termination, he filed writ petition before this Court. During the pendecy of the petition, the termination order was handed over to the petitioner which was subsequently challenged by way of amendment.

6. He has further stated that the leave of the petitioner from 02.10.2009 to 04.10.2009 was sanctioned. Thereafter, the petitioner went to resume his duty, but he was not allowed to do so. Thus, he has stated that the petitioner cannot be faulted with any reason which would justify the order of termination.

7. Per contra, Mr. Soni, learned AGP has stated that as per the condition no.12 of the appointment order dated 28.10.2004, the services of the petitioner can be terminated without any notice, if his service is found unsatisfactory or he is involved in any discipline. He has stated that the petitioner service was contractual in nature and any employee who is employed on adhoc contractual basis has no right to continue in service. He has also stated that during the period from 2004-2009, the petitioner remained absent for 372 days.

8. Learned AGP has contended that the petitioner was in habit of remaining absent though he was asked to report for duty after his leave from 02.10.2009 to 04.10.2009, but he did not remain present. He has stated that the petitioner had only worked for one day in the month of October – 2009 i.e. 01.10.2009 and he went on leave and had not worked for the entire month. He has stated that the petitioner was appointed on contractual ad-hoc basis for 11 months and it is not that only the petitioner is terminated by the impugned order dated 13.10.2009, where as other similarily situated persons were also terminated, as their services were not required.

9. Mr. Soni, learned AGP has also pointed out that after passing the impugned order, recruitment of regular process was also carried out in which as per recruitment rules, persons, who are S.S.C. passed are appointed. He has also pointed out to the appointment letter made pursuant to the said recruitment rules, wherein all the candidates who are recruited are S.S.C. Pass. He has also stated that the petitioner cannot be appointed, as he is not S.S.C. Pass.

10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties.

11. The order dated 28.10.2004 appointing the petitioner clearly reveals that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for the period of 11 months. He was also appointed on the fixed-scale of Rs.1500/-. The condition no.2 states that the services of the petitioner will be terminated at any point of time by giving one month notice or one month pay. The condition no.12 specifically mentions that during the cont