Gorakhnath Vs Uoi and ors.

.....ascertained by reference to the consequence of non-compliance thereto. if non- fulfillment of the requirement results in rejection of the tender, then it would be an essential part of the tender otherwise it is only a collateral term." hence, if on the recommendation of the tender committee, the accepting authority did not find the deviation from clause (ii) of the note by ion exchange very material and has accepted the offer of ion exchange, the division bench of the high court could not have held that ion exchange committed a breach of an essential term by not mentioning the excise duty amount in rupees in its offer.[para 18] by reversing the decision of the accepting authority of the irctc, the division bench of the high court, in our considered opinion, acted as an appellate court and exceeded its power of judicial review in a matter relating to award of contract contrary to the law laid down by this court in the leading case of tata cellular (supra). held: in the result, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the division bench of the high court and allow the appeals of irctc and ion exchange and dismiss the appeal of doshion. there shall be no order as to costs.[para 19,20].....services of the casual labourers may be dispensed with by giving a notice of one month in writing.4. at a vigilance raid conducted, it got detected that the petitioner and his junior engineer were indulging in objectionable activity of letting out vacant governement property to private individuals for personal gain. in fact, a cbi raid had been conducted and during the raid it was found that unauthorized occupants were occupying governement quarters in pushp vihar.5. at the inquiry it was established that the petitioner used to collect the rent from one sh.moti lal nagri. the rent was ` 1100/- per month.6. how this rent was shared inter se the petitioner and the junior engineer is not known.7. be that as it may, the regular inquiry was necessitated on account of involvement of a junior engineer who was a permanent employee. there would have been no necessity to hold an inquiry qua the petitioner who was not a permanent employee.8. it is no doubt true that services of an employee on probation cannot be terminated without an inquiry on a charge of misconduct but on the condition that the termination of service is stigmatic.9. we do not intend to write an essay, but suffice would it be to note that those who are inducted into service under the state against regular vacancies and are selected as per applicable recruitment rules are treated as employees acquiring a status under article 311 of the constitution of india. a casual labourer does not acquire any such status even on acquiring a temporary status. indeed, in the decision reported as 2002 (2) atj 215 (sc) uoi & anr. v. mohan pal & ors. it was observed, with reference to para 7 of the scheme dated 10.09.1993, that if there is a serious misconduct it would be open to the employer to dispense with the service of a casual labourer who had acquired a temporary status.10. we find no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed.11. no costs.