Vijay Bahuguna, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner is challenging an order of dismissal dated 29th January, 1992, passed by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission. ,
(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner was selected as Superintendent Grade II on 28-11-1984 by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission. When the vacancy occurred in the post of Superintendent Grade I, instead of the petitioner Mr. V.K. Khanna was promoted. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 4185 of 1988 challenging the order of the Secretary of the Commission, dated 22-7-1988 appointing Sri V. K. Khanna as Superintendent Grade I. On the 27th of July, 1988, this Court issued a direction to the Commission to consider the representation of the petitioner against the appointment of Sri V. K. Khanna as Superintendent Grade I. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 30th of July, 1988 on the reasoning that it was a temporary arrangement and no rights of the petitioner were affected. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 21908 of 1988 against the order passed on the representation of the petitioner. On 5-8-1991 this Court directed the Commission to take work of the post of Superintendent Grade I, from the petitioner till a regular officiating appointment was made in accordance with law. The relevant part of the order is quoted below i "The petitioner would be entitled to work on this post till a regular/officiating appointment is made in accordance with law. It will be open to the respondents to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law if his work and conduct is not found to be satisfactory. The respondents are directed to comply with these directions within 15 days of a certified copy of this order being placed before them." On 21st August, 1991, the respondent No. 2 called the petitioner to explain his work and conduct before complying with the order of the High Court dated 5-8-1991 and again issued a letter to the petitioner on 22nd August, 1991 to the effect that his conduct was objectionable and amounted to misconduct and asked for his reply till the 24th of August, 1991. It is pertinent to note that on 23rd of August, 1991, the Chief Accounts Officer, acting as Secretary of the Commission wrote a letter to the petitioner that as his conduct was improper it was not possible for the Commission to give the work of Superintendent Grade I to the petitioner a directed by the order of this Court dated 5-8-1991. This order of the 23rd of August, 1991, was passed a day before the expiry of time which was granted to the petitioner to explain his conduct by the letter of Sri Harish Chandra Saxena the respondent No 2 on the 22nd of August, 1991.
(3.) On 30th of August, 1991, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 27163 of 1991 which was summarily dismissed by this court. Against this order the petitioner filed spoil Appeal No. 81 of 1991. In the Special Appeal a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Commission and a Charge-sheet was annexed thereto. On the 29th of January, 1992, the impugned order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner.;