1977 Supreme(MP) 561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Shivdayal, J.S. Verma, JJ.
Sheikh Babu - Petitioner
Vs.
District Family Planning-cum-Health Officer, Chhatarpur and another - Respondents
M.P. No. 761 of 1972 (J)
Decided On : 04-10-1977

Headnote:(1) Constitution of India - Art. 311 - order of termination of service simpliciter - casting no stigma on the petitioner - cannot be assailed.

       (2) Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service) Rules 1960, (M. P.) - rule 12 - scope of - if there is any provision in the order of appointment of the temporary employee between the Government and the employee - rule 12 not attracted - validity of termination of service determined by reference to the terms in appointment order.

       Short Note

       1. The petitioner was appointed temporarily until further orders as Family Planning Field Worker. By order Annexure G. dated 28 - 8 - 1972 the temporary services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect stating that they were no longer required.

       2. Held : The impugned order Annexure G dated 28 - 8 - 1972 ex facie is not open to challenge as it casts no stigma on the petitioner and only says that the temporary services of the petitioner were no longer required. That being so, unless the petitioner can claim the benefit of any term in the contract of his employment or any statutory provision, the impugned order cannot be assailed. State of U.P. v. Ramchandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547 relied on.

       3. It is to avoid the above consequence that reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner on rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service) Rules 1960. If there is any provision in the order of appointment of the temporary employee or any term in the agreement between the Government and the temporary employee governing the manner of termination of the temporary employment, then, the provisions of rule 12 are not attracted and the validity of termination of service has to be determined by reference to the provision or term in the appointment order or the agreement. It is for this reason that rule 12 will have no application in the order Annexure F relating to appointment contains any provision or term governing the situation. In the instant case there being such a provision in the appointment order so that the rule 12 are in applicable to petitioner's case. Naval Kishore Khare v. State of M.P. and another, M. P. No. 647 of 1972 decided on 4 - 10 - 1977 referred to. Petition dismissed.