JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. The grievance of the Petitioner is that his temporary services have been terminated, according to him without due process of law.
2. In District Collector and Chairman v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the following principle of law:
It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.
3. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel has relied on this passage from the celebrity judgment to emphasize that persons who have been incorrectly or irregularly recruited, should not be continued in service. Learned Counsel for the Respondents states that the Petitioner is one out of 24 persons whose temporary services were terminated on the ground that his initial recruitment was irregular and contrary to the Rules.
4. Two grounds have been mentioned in the Counter Affidavit to support the action of the Respondents. Firstly, that the Petitioner was over-age by 3 years 4 months and 10 days. Secondly that his chest measurement was 78-79 Cms and no condensation was obtained on this ground, and that these measurements had been unauthorisedly changed. The original records have been produced. The application of the Petitioner categorically mentions that at that point of time, he was 26 years and 8 months of age. Rule 11 of The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 prescribes that the age for Head Constables, Naiks and Constables should not be less than 18 years and not more than 23 years. The Petitioner has indubitably transgressed these Rules. On the application of the observations in the aforesaid case, his erstwhile employment had deprived an eligible person from employment. In this context, Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that there was a five years’ relaxation for Constable-Driver. Learned Counsel for the Respondents states that no such relaxation was in existence. So far as this ground is concerned, the specific and precise statement of the Petitioner being over-age by 3 years 4 months and 10 days has been pleaded in the Counter Affidavit. If there was in fact some relaxation in force at the relevant time, the Petitioner should have made a specific asseveration to that effect in the Rejoinder. So far as Rejoinder is concerned, it merely denies the allegations made in the Counter Affidavit.
5. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made a request for adjournment in order to enable him to file an additional affidavit at this stage, which we decline. The Petition has already been amended once and has been pending for almost a decade.
6. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with and that at least a Show Cause Notice should have been issued to the Petitioner. So far as this question is concerned, our attention has been drawn to Rule 16 of The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 which make the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. This position is fortified by Rule 102 of the said Rules which is an omnibus provision stipulating that the conditions of service of members of the Force in respect of matters for which no provision is made in the Rules shall be the same as are for the time being applicable to other officers of the Government of India of corresponding status. Rule 5(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services Temporary Service Rules envisages that the services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the Appointing Authority or by the Appointing Authority to the Government servant.
7. Mr. Malhotra, counsel for the Petitioner now seeks to rely on the Proviso to Section 5 of the Central Civil Services Temporary Service Rules which states that the service of any temporary Government servant may be terminated forthwith; and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services. The Petitioner contends before us that this stipulation has been ignored. In this regard, counsel for the Respondents draws our attention to para 4 of the Counter Affidavit to the amended Writ Petition which mentions that the amount was tendered to the Petitioner, however, he declined to accept it on the ground that he had already filed an Appeal. No doubt this has been controverter in the Rejoinder. Learned Counsel for the Respondents immediately submits that in the Revision/Mercy Petition, the Petitioner has made a reference to the preparation of a bill by the Pay Clerk of 123 Battalion, CRPF for one month notice.
8. So far as termination of temporary services is concerned, a similar view has been taken by this Court in WP(C) 8735/2007 titled Santosh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, decided on 26.11.2007.
9. No ground for interference is made out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Dismissed.