S.N.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition has been filed canvassing the validity of the impugned order dated 18th May, 2002 by which the order dated 7th March, 2000 passed by the respondent thereby granting regularisation on Class III post, was rescinded and he was relegated to work on a Class 4 post in the Nagar Nigam Gorakhpur.
(2.) THE matrix of necessary facts as unfolded in the writ petition is that the petitioner entered the service of Nagar Nigam as Class -IV employee on ad hoc basis and he came to be regularized on Class IV post by means of order dated 27 -5 -1993. Subsequently, on a writ petition being No. 20469 of 1995 filed by the petitioner, this Court by means of the judgment/order dated 9 -9 -1999, enjoined the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation on Class 3 post in the health department of Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur within two months and this furnished foundation for passing the order dated 7th March, 2000 thereby the petitioner was bestowed the designation of Tax Inspector -II grade and ever -since then he has been discharging the functions in the Nagar Nigam as Tax Inspector. It would further transpire from the record that the petitioner was transferred by order dated 3 -4 -2000 from Health Department to Tax Department in Circle No. 8 and at the time of passing of the impugned order relegating the petitioner to the post of Class 4 cadre, he was discharging his duties as Tax Inspector in the Tax Department of the Nigam and by means of the impugned order, he has stripped of the designation of Tax Inspector and all consequential benefits which flowed from the order dated 7th March, 2000. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Khare for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhyan appearing for Mukhya Nagar Adhikari.
(3.) THE main plank of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order and thus the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in opposition contended that earlier order dated 7th March, 2000 was mistakenly passed being based on fallacious assumptions and that was why it was rightly rescinded.;