(KRISHNA MURARI), J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.02.1994 passed by the respondent no. 1. A further relief of mandamus has been claimed through amendment to direct the respondents to make payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner. Facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Consolidation Lekhpal on 09.01.1968 and continued on the said post till 18.01.1972 and thereafter he was retrenched from service. The petitioner was again appointed as an adhoc Lekhpal vide order dated 08.06.1980 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khalilabad on a vacancy caused due to termination of services of one Ram Saran, Lekhpal. The service of the petitioner was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 01.03.1986 with effect from 15.06.1982. After being confirmed, the petitioner continu8ed to function on the said post till 26.02.1994 when his service was terminated on the ground that since he has failed in the special Lekhpal examination held in 1981 and being an untrained Lekhpal, he is not entitled to continue in service. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing instant writ petition. Vide order dated 17.03.1994, this Court stayed the effect and operation of the impugned termination order dated 26.02.1994, as a result the petitioner continued in service till 31.07.2001 when he retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after being confirmed in service vide order dated 01.03.1986 with effect from 15.06.1982, his services could not have been terminated without any notice or opportunity of hearing and the impugned order suffers from vice of principles of natural justice. It has further been submitted that the result of the examination held in 1981 was never communicated to the petitioner and there appears to be no justification to terminate his service on the said ground after 13 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if the petitioner failed, as alleged by the respondents, in the examined held in 1981 he was entitled for being afforded two more opportunities as Para 226 of the Land Record Manual provides for three opportunities to clear the Lekhpal examination. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The only fact stated in the counter affidavit is that the order of confirmation was irregular and since the petitioner failed to pass the Lekhpal examination, therefore, he was not entitled to continue in service and the termination order was rightly passed.;