6.Insofar as the first ground raised by the petitioner counsel that, the procedure contemplated under Rule 149 of the Rules have not been followed at the time of appointment of the second respondent is concerned, the law is well settled in this regard that, such non following alone ipso facto would not entitle the employer to terminate the service of the employee, who had been appointed or engaged directly without seeking any names being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, abruptly or suddenly without any other reason. In support of the aforesaid proposition, there has been number of decisions and there is no quarrel on that even by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Insofar as the second ground raised by the petitioner counsel that, he has not completed 240 days in one full year is concerned, since the second respondent was engaged or appointed only on 04.11.2000 and before he completes the one year successful service, since a show cause notice had been given and during the relevant point of time, there had been a disengagement on the part of the petitioner Society against the second respondent and ultimately, by order dated 12.11.2001, a termination was also issued against the second respondent, this Court feels that, the said ground that he had not completed 240 days in one full year for the purpose of seeking conferment or the benefit of absorption, cannot be accepted and therefore, on that ground, the petitioner cannot make out any acceptable ground to assail the impugned order.
