- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has been appointed as a Chain Man by the appointment letter dated 26th August, 1997, issued by the District Magistrate. In the appointment letter itself it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner is being appointed purely on temporary basis and the services could be terminated without giving any prior intimation. The appointment of the petitioner has been terminated by the order dated 29th December, 1997 on the ground that several complaints have been received with regard to the appointment of the appointment and on the receipt of the complaints, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has been directed to make an enquiry. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, vide enquiry report, dated 21.11.1997, informed that the appointment of the petitioner has been made without giving any intimation relating to the vacancy to the Employment Exchange, as required under U.P. Group D Employees Services Rules, 1985, as amended from time to time.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner has been made by the District Magistrate against the vacant post on approval by the Selection Committee. The operation of the termination order dated 29.12.1997 has been stayed and the petitioner is still working.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was ab initio illegal. The appointment of the petitioner was wholly temporary and in the appointment letter itself, it was clearly stated that the service of the petitioner could be terminated without giving any prior notice. Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1985 provides that the appointing authority shall notify the vacancy along with the reservation, if any, to the Employment Exchange and in addition the appointing authority may invite the applications from the candidates registered with the Employment Exchange for which the appointing authority shall publish a notice on the notice board and in a local daily news paper, but in the present case, the vacancy has not been notified under Rule 19(1). Rule 16 provides for constitution of the Selection Committee consisting of the appointing authority, an officer belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and an officer belonging to the minority community, which shall take interview of the candidates, but such procedure has not been followed in the present case. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was dehorse to the U.P. Group D Employees Services Rules, 1985 and is in contravention of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Krishan Yadav and another vs. State of Haryana, 1994 AIR(SC) 2166.;