A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a temporary hand employed as a process server in the District Court at Fatehpur. By an order dated 7 -11 -1979, the District Judge terminated his services finding his work and conduct to be unsatisfactory. The petitioner filed a representation/appeal to this Court which was allowed by an order communicated to the petitioner vide a letter of the Deputy Registrar of this Court dated 18 -5 -1982. The letter was addressed to the District Judge and stated that the Court had allowed the representation of the petitioner and ordered his reinstatement with the benefit of arrears of salary with effect from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. It was further stated that during the period that the petitioner was out of employment, he would be deemed to be temporary and that after six months from the date of his reinstatement the District Judge shall assess the work and conduct of the petitioner and if he is satisfied the petitioner may be considered for being made permanent w. e f. the date on which the District Judge passes the order. It appears from the counter -affidavit that after his re -instatement the petitioner's work was found unsatisfactory and consequently by the impugned order dated 22 -7 -1983 the District Judge terminated the services of the petitioner in the purported exercise of powers under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 stating that the petitioner's services are no longer required.
(2.) AGAINST the aforesaid order dated 22 -2 -1983 the petitioner filed a representation/appeal before this Court which was dismissed by an order dated 18 -7 -1984 of this Court. The order was communicated to the petitioner vide the letter of the District Judge dated 19 -7 -1984. Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the order passed by the High Court, the District Judge ought to have considered the petitioner for confirmation within six months of the reinstatement of the petitioner and that not having been dope, The District Judge had no power to terminate the petitioner's services after expiry of six months of such re -instatement.
(3.) I am unable to agree. While directing the re -instatement of the petitioner, this Court had specifically observed that the work and conduct of the petitioner should be watched by the District Judge for a period of six months from the re -instatement of the petitioner and thereafter the District Judge may consider him for confirmation. In the letter of the Deputy Registrar dated 18 -5 -1982 communicating the result of the petitioner's representation to the District Judge, it was observed: The Court has also ordered that after six months from the date of reinstatement, the District Judge will assess the work of Sri Chhanga Lal and if the District Judge feels satisfied, he may consider him for being made permanent to be effective from the date on which that order would be passed.;