Om Prakash, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS seek quashing of the order dated 11th January, 1978, Annexure 6 to the writ petition passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Respondent No. 2 declaring the order dated 14th January, 1976 whereby the services of the Respondent No. 1 were terminated by the petitioners, as void. The facts, as succinctly stated, are that the Respondent No. 1 was appointed on 26 -10 -1967 temporarily as Vaccinator in the substantive vacancy caused by the retirement of one Sri Raj Narain and before that he was appointed as Apprentice Vaccinator on 20th July, 1965 by the President of Zila Parishad. By the Resolution No. 3 dated 30th October, 1975, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, the Zila Parishad, Mirzapur decided to terminate the services of temporary employees whose services were no longer required after obtain the report of Mukhya Adhikari.
(2.) THE Mukhya Adhikari sent his report on 13th January, 1976 recommending termination of services of 9 temporary Vaccinators including the Respondent No. 1. The said report was accepted and termination order against the Respondent No. 1 was issued on 14th January, 1976 which was actually received by him on 17th May, 1976. It is by the order dated 14 -1 -1976, services of the Respondent No. 1 were terminated with effect from 20th January, 1976. The termination order was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal stating that he was appointed on the substantive vacancy and was placed on probation for a period of one year under Rule 28 of the Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1970 (for short, the Rules 1970), that by the letter dated 30th May, 1969, the District Medical Officer of Health, Mirzapur recommended to the Adhyaksha, Zila Parishad to issue a formal order confirming the temporary Vaccinators; that no formal order confirming the Respondent No. 1 was issued but he continued in service and, therefore, he should be deemed to have been confirmed and as such his services cannot be terminated.
(3.) THE petitioner filed a written statement before the Tribunal having admitted that the Respondent No. 1 was appointed on 26 -10 -1967. It is not denied that the Respondent No. 1 was appointed on a substantive post which fell vacant on the retirement of one Sri Raj Narain. Though averments made in para 17 of the writ petition that the substantive post on which the Respondent No. 1 was appointed, was never abolished and is still existing, is denied in the written statement by the petitioner but there is no clear averment as to by which order the said post was abolished. In para 28 of the written statement, it is averred by the petitioner that retrenchment to terminate the services of the temporary Vaccinators was ordered with a view to improving the financial position of the Parishad.;