K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the termination order dated 9-6-1989 contained in annexure '3' attached with the writ petition.
(2.) THE main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before us is that the services of the petitioner have been illegally terminated while juniors to the petitioner have been retained in service. Relevant allegations have been made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. In counter affidavit vide paragraph 7 the contents of paragraph 6 of the writ petition have been replied as below : "7. That in reply to the allegation of paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was working as junior most clerk in training and visit scheme. The person junior to the petitioner were not working in the section in which the petitioner was working in the General Section. However, services of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh who was junior to the petitioner has also been now terminated on 7-12-89. Sri Ramadhar Yadav who is also junior to the petitioner was given promotion from class IV to class III Joint Director Agriculture (Ext). Varanasi. In paragraph 7 of the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has made the following allegations : "7. That the averments as made in para 7 of the counter affidavit are incorrect, hence not admitted and the averments made in para 6 of the writ petition are reiterated. It is further made clear that earlier the petitioner was also working in the General Section and from there he was transferred to the Department of Training and visit scheme. All the posts are under the Director Agriculture and are the same posts. It is also made clear that purposely the services of Mr Awadhesh Kumar Singh was terminated in the month of December, 89 during the pendency of the present writ petition and still other junior persons are continuing in the service on the post of junior clerk".
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties and, in our opinion, there is sufficient force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the authorities have acted in clear contravention of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution in terminating the services of the petitioner through Annexure '3' attached with the writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is noteworthy that the juniors to the petitioner have been retained in service and the suggestion on behalf of the opposite parties that the petitioner was junior most clerk in the Training and Visit scheme and therefore his services were terminated, did not appeal to us. The petitioner was originally appointed in the General Section and from there he was transferred to training and visit scheme and persons appointed junior to the petitioner in General Section have been retained. Therefore, we think that the opposite parties have acted unreasonably and arbitrarily in terminating the services of the petitioner. Admittedly, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh was junior to the petitioner whose services have been terminated in December, 1989, does indicate that the authorities have not acted fairly and reasonably in terminating the services of the petitioner on 9-6-1989.;