V.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Daya Chand Dixit, an Engineering/Drawing Instructor in Mechanical Engineering in Prem Mahavidyalaya Polytechnic, Mathura prays for a writ of certiorari quashing an order dated June 21, 1977 terminating his services with effect from July 31, 1977 and also a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents to the petitioner to pay him his salary from August 1, 1977 and to allow him also to work on his post.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that having obtained a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in 1st Division and after working as a Mechanical Engineer in some private Workshops he appeared at a selection held by the Staff Selection Board for selecting four candidates for appointment as Engineering/Drawing Instructors (Mechanical Engineering) in the Prem Mahavidyalaya Polytechnic. The posts were advertised by the Polytechnic and a Staff Selection Board constituted under Section 22-E of U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 (U.P. Act No XVII of 1962 as amended by U.P. Act No 35 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) placed the petitioner at serial no. 3 in the order of merit He joined the post in pursuance of an order of appointment contained in the memorandum, dated November 17, 1975 issued under the signatures of the Principal of the Polytechnic who has been impleaded as respondent no 3 in the petition, This appointment, according to the petitioner, was on probation for one year with effect from the date of his joining, namely, November 19, 1975 though no formal letter of appointment on probation was a actually issued to him by the Committee of Management which was the appointing authority. The two other persons, who were also selected along with the petitioner, joined later than him in December 1975. The petitioner had been appointed against a clear permanent vacancy and since his statutory period of probation of one year was not extended any further he became a confirmed employee with effect from November 19, 1976.
(3.) The case of the petitioner further is that the third respondent was not favourably disposed towards him and out of malice purported to terminate his services by the impugned notice dated June 21, 1977 which was received by him on June 27, 1977. This notice, according to the petitioner, is also vitiated as it has been issued in contravention of Section 22-C (1) of the Act which requires insurance of any such notice only with the prior approval in writing of the Director of Technical Education, U.P. (respondent No. 1), without obtaining any such prior approval. The petitioner's representation, dated July 9/1972 (annexure Rs.4' to the petition) to the third respondent and the one dated July 25, 1977 (annexure Rs.5' to the writ petition) addressed to the Committee of Management for the recall of the impugned notice bore no fruit. Meanwhile, the petitioner wanted to appear in another selection for the post of Engineering/Drawing instructor (Automobiles) in the Polytechnic to be held on August 12, 1977 but the third respondent assured him that in case be withdraw the allegations contained in the representations made him earlier, the petitioner will be appointed in the vacancy created on account of the promotion of one Shri R. B. Gupta to the post of a lecturer in Automobile Engineering in the Institute without facing a fresh selection as he had already been approved by the Staff Selection Board in October, 1995. Similar assurance, according to the petitioner, was given to him by two members of the said Board who were present when the third respondent had extended that assurance to him. Petitioner claims that on this account he did not appear before the Selection Board Further, a representation made by the petitioner to the Minister of Education, U P, did not yield any result, he, therefore, had to approach this court through the present writ petition.;