D.R.Chaudhary, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.8.1990 cancelling his appointment as Class IV employee and has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the same and to direct the Respondents not to interfere in the petitioner's right to continue on the post and to pay salary.
(2.) It is contended that the petitioner, after having been selected by the Selection Committee, was appointed as Class IV employee vide appointment order dated 11.7.1990 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) passed by the Project Officer, Intensive Sheep and Wool Development Project, Mirzapur (the respondent) in the pay scale of 750/- to 940/- vide order dated 13.7.1990 the Appointing Authority required the petitioner to join and accordingly the petitioner joined as Class IV employee on 13.7.1990 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition); the appointment was made against the substantive vacancy after having followed the procedure laid down under the Rules; juniors to the petitioner have been retained in service and the post for which the petitioner was appointed is still lying vacant; the order impugned has been passed by the authority junior to the Appointing Authority; further the impugned order is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is also without jurisdiction.
(3.) The claim of the petitioner has been disputed by filing counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted; the result sheet was not signed by all the members of the Committee; the appointment letter was issued after one year from the date of selection; the impugned order has been passed on the dictate of the Director, Animal Husbandry, U.P., Lucknow; the order impugned is perfectly justified and suffers from no illegality or infirmity; the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for. However, the assertions contained in Para 8 of the writ petition that the impugned order has been passed by the authority who is not competent to pass the order being junior to the Appointing Authority has not been disputed by the Respondents.;