The main legal point established in the judgment is that a daily wager is not entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution and that the M.P. Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 do not apply to persons engaged on daily wages.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 17.1.2006 passed by respondent No.2 by which services of the petitioner were terminated. According to the petitioner, his services have been terminated without giving any show-cause notice to him and without conducting any enquiry into the matter, therefore, the order of termination is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. According to the petitioner, he was in continuous service for 9 years and thus had acquired the status of quasi permanent servant and thus entitled to protection under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. It is also submitted that since respondent No.2 is not his appointing authority, therefore, he was not competent to terminate him.

2. The brief facts, which are not in dispute, are that petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar in the year 1997 on daily wages by the Superintendent of Rescue Home for a period of 89 days. It is mentioned in the appointment order itself that his services are being engaged on daily wages and if they are not found satisfactory, they can be dispensed with without giving any notice. Petitioner has also filed Annexure P/4 which is also an order in regard to engagement of the petitioner for 89 days in which it is clearly mentioned that the services of the petitioner being on daily wage basis, can be dispensed with without giving any intimation and he will not have any claim for government service.

3. It is also not in dispute that earlier petitioner had filed W.P.No.5181/2005 (S) complaining that respondent No.4 i.e. the Superintendent of Rescue Home, Morena, was harassing the petitioner, and therefore, a direction was issued to respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. Collector Distt. Morena and Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Morena, to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law and the petition was disposed of.

4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that impugned order was passed after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is apparent that petitioner was not performing his duties properly. Respondents have filed copy of show-cause notice dated 10.4.05, show notice dated 22.4.03, show cause notice dated 2.11.05 and reply dated 7.11.2005 furnished by the petitioner. In his reply, petitioner has admitted that he could not report on his duty in time because he could not get any transport to report on his duty and submitted that mistake on his part be condoned. Respondents have also placed on record correspondence dated 16.1.2006, which took place between the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Morena, and the Superintendent, Rescue Home, Morena, to show that petitioner was not functioning properly. It was pointed out that in 1998, 4 children had run away. Similarly, on 10.4.03, 22.3.03 and 13.12.04 so also on 10.4.05 certain children had run away from the Rescue Home. It was also pointed out that petitioner was engaged in supplying tobacco and smoking material to the boys staying in Rescue Home. It has also made a reference to the note-sheet written by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Court dated 13.4.2005 pointing that in presence of the Chokidar i.e. the petitioner certain boys had disappeared, and therefore, there can be danger to the life of the boys staying in the Rescue Home.

5. Copy of the note-sheet written by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Court, Morena, is on record in which there is a categorical note for removal of Chowkidar for the safety of the juvenile children lodged in the Rescue Home. In view of the aforesaid background, impugned order Annexure P/1 has been issued by the Collector, therefore, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the order passed by the Collector, Morena.

6. The issue to be adjudicated in the present case is whether the protection available under Article 311 of the Constitution is available to a daily wager like the petitioner and wheth