M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) By an order dated 1-7-1986, respondent No. 1 has directed that on the basis of the resolution dated 9-6-1986, the post of General Manager (Food Services) held by the petitioner stands abolished with effect from 30-6-1986. The services of the petitioner were no longer required and were terminated with effect from 30-6-1986 (afternoon) on payment of one month's salary in lieu of one month notice. By another order dated 5-7-1986, the allotment of quarter in favour of the petitioner was revoked with effect from 1-7-1986 and the petitioner was asked to handover the vacant possession of the quarter to the authorities. These two orders are impugned in this writ petition. The facts are brief.
(2.) The petitioner is said to have been appointed as General Manager (Food Services) on the post created under the U.P. Agricultural University Act. Under Section 26 (2) of the Act a contract of service was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The petitioner completed the period of probation and thereafter continued on the post. The petitioner's case is that he made a complaint against one Dr. S.S. Ahuliwalia for his mis-conduct which resulted in his suspension. The said Dr. Ahuliwalia is said to have made request to Dean of Students Welfare of the University to do away with the services of the petitioner by any means. The suspension order is said to have been issued against the petitioner on 4-7-1985. Copy of the suspension order is placed on the record as Annexure 2. No enquiry was held against the petitioner after the issuance of suspension order, nor was any charge framed against him, which, in the opinion of the petitioner, means that there was no material available with the respondents which could be enquired into. The respondents are said to have revoked the suspension order of the petitioner on 30-6-1986. Copy of the same is annexed to the writ petition. Thereafter the impugned order was issued whereby the post held by the petitioner was abolished on 1-7-1986. Copy whereof is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner submits that neither the Act nor the Statute authorise respondent No. 1 to abolish the post. Respondent No. 1 has authority to create administrative, ministerial and other necessary posts and to make appointment thereto. The petitioner's further case is that no sanction was obtained by the respondent No. 1 from the Ministry of Agriculture for abolition of the post. It is contended that services of a permanent employee after confirmation can be terminated only on few grounds which includes abolition of post. This is envisaged under sub-clause (6) of Clause (o) of Para 4 of Chapter 25 of the Statute framed under the Act.
(3.) It is averted that there are eleven hostels in the University and Mess in each of them was run by the Manager and the petitioner's job was to supervise all the Managers with regard to feeling of students. Posts of Mess Manager (Food Managers) have not been abolished. The petitioner's post is, therefore, required by the University for supervising the Food Managers. The petitioner states that sub-clause (6) of Clause (e) of Para 4 suffers from vice of excessive delegations of power and there is no guide-line for its exercise in Statute and the power of abolition of post is in direct conflict with Section 6 (13) of the Act which provides creation of administrative and ministerial posts and appointment thereto. Handing over of residential quarter is said to be act of victimisation against the petitioner.;