V.D.Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Virendra Singh Verma who was appointed as Junior Chemical Asssistant (Junior Soil Assistant) under the Agricultural Chemist at Rudrapur district Niani Tal, in Group II of Subordinate Agricultural Service by means of notification No. AB-5019/II-9A dated 17-8-53 by the Director of Agriculture, U. P. He joined the post on 26-8-53 as probationer and was on probation for two years. This appointment was till a suitable candidate was selected and approved by the Public Service Commission. An advertisement for the post was made by the Public Service Commission on 15-7-1954 and the petitioner applied for it. He was later on informed by a letter dated 26-9-55 by the Officer-in-charge of the Regional Soil Laboratory, Rudrapur that he had been selected by the Public Service Commission. According to the petitioner, thereafter he served as a permanent employee in a substantive post to the entire satisfaction of his superior officers and there had been no adverse remarks against him. In December 1955 the petitioner's application for Senior Agriculture Inspector, Group I, was duly forwarded by the Director of Agriculture to Public Service Commission. He was told by the Agricultural Chemist to the U. P. Government in the same month that a complaint had been received against the petitioner from the Secretary of the Town Congress Committee, Rudrapur, that he was a member of the "R. S. S.", which had been forwarded to the Director of Agriculture. It is said that on 21-1-56 Sri A. N. Misra, Assistant Soil Chemist, Regional Soil Laboratory, Rudrapur after office hours showed the petitioner a letter from the Administration Officer enquiring about the action taken against the petitioner on the aforesaid complaint of the Town Congress Committee. On 23-1-1956 the petitioner received an order terminating his services under the orders of the Additional Director.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner was that he was never told the charge or charges against him and was not afforded any opportunity of giving an explanation or showing cause against the order proposed. He further complains that the Additional Director of Agriculture sent a communication to the Public Service Commission in pursuance of which the interview of the petitioner for the post of the Senior Agriculture Inspector Group I was cancelled by the Public Service Commission, and he was not called for interview, though candidates for lower qualification were called; and his complaint is that thereby there had been discrimination and Article 16 of the Constitution had been infringed, because he was denied equality of opportunity in matter relating to employment. In the post of Group I, one Mr. Saxena had been appointed, who was less qualified than the petitioner, fay the Public Service Commission. The petitioner asked for a discharge certificate which was not given. It was contended that he was appointed by the Director of Agriculture and his services could not be terminated by the Additional Director.
(3.) Some of the facts have been contested on behalf of the State. The parties to the petition are the Additional Director of Agriculture and the Public Service Commission, besides the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the counter affidavit it has been alleged that the petitioner was appointed purely in a temporary capacity, and he had not been appointed as a probationer for two years. He was appointed purely temporarily as a stop gap arrangement pending selection of a suitable candidate by the Public Service Commission, and Rule 25 of the Subordinate Agricultural Services Rules only applies to persons selected for a permanent appointment.;