- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of his termination from service dated 22-2-1993 passed by respondent No. 1. Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as peon in Tehsil Bisalpur, District Pilibhit by letter dated 1-6-1992 with the condition that he shall continue to work till a regularly selected candidates comes and joins the post. The appointment was purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time. He worked as a seasonal collection peon for a period of 791 days as per certificate dated 4-5-1991 issued by the Tehsildar Sadar, Pilibhit : Period Number of days worked 1-4-1988 to 15-5-1988 46 days 18-5-1988 to 29-8-1988 103 days 1-5-1989 to 14-6-1989 45 days 16-6-1989 to 22-4-1990 301 days 2-5-1990 to 31-7-1990 91 days 7-8-1990 to 26-9-1990 51 days 24-10-1990 to 30-12-1990 68 days 4-1-1991 to 30-3-1991 86 days Total number of days worked 791 days From the order-sheet dated 5-7-1999 it appears that the Standing Counsel has made a statement that he had already filed a counter-affidavit on 24-1-1996. The office was directed to trace it out and place it on the record. A copy of the counter-affidavit was also served upon Sri B. B. Paul and he was directed to file a rejoinder-affidavit.
(3.) IT is alleged that the appointing authority of the peons is Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bisalpur, respondent No. 2, but the impugned order of termination from service was passed in compliance of the order of the District Magistrate, Pilibhit, respondent No. 1. IT is further alleged that before passing the impugned order dated 22-2-1993, neither the District Magistrate, Pilibhit, respondent No. 1 nor Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Pilibhit, respondent No. 2 issued any show-cause notice to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him. IT is further contended that the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been violated. The petitioner has come out with the case that he is a Class-IV employee and he was liable to have been continued in service in view of the bye-laws applicable to him known as Employees Services Bye- laws, 1985 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. He submits that in pursuance of the bye-laws 23 (3) and 28 the appointment of an ad hoc appointee is to continue for a period of one year or till such date on which a candidate duly selected by the selection committee comes and joins the post, whichever, is earlier. He further submits that the petitioner has a right of regularization in service due to non-availability of candidate who has been duly selected by selection committee.;