- (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) In 1945 the petitioner was appointed as Enquiry Inspector at Nainital in the Food and Civil Supplies Department. In due course he became an Area Rationing Officer. His appointment, however, remained temporary. In the year 1953, in view of the Government's policy of gradual relaxation of control, the Government got prepared a list of the employees of the Rationing Department who could be absorbed in other Departments. The petitioner's name came in such a list. The petitioner was accordingly absorbed in the planning Department and was posted as Assistant Planning Officer at Nainital with effect from 16th February, 1954. Then from November 11, 1954 he was appointed as Tourist Intelligence Inspector. On August 31, 1956 he was appointed as the Tourist Development Officer Kumaon, on which post he remained till April 3, 1960. In the meantime the post of Tourist Development Officer was redesignated as that of Regional Tourist Officer. So he became a Regional Tourist Officer. However, his appointment remained temporary all through. On December 28, 1957, the State Government through the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh invited applications for the selection of candidates for 4 posts of Tourist Development Officers at Kumaon Varanasi, Hardwar and Agra. The recruitment was to be made by selection otherwise than open competition. On December 1, 1956, the petitioner appeared before the Public Service Commission. The petitioner was not selected. Four other candidates were selected. As in the meantime, one additional post of Tourist Development Officer was created at Lucknow, the four persons were posted at Varanasi, Hardwar, Agra and Lucknow and the petitioner continued to work as Tourist Development Officer at Nainital. It has, however, been admitted in the counter-affidavit of Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma that although the petitioner had not been selected for appointment by the Public Service Commission, yet he was placed on the reserve List. Admittedly, a reserve list means a list of candidates who though not selected for appointment are approved for appointment in future vacancies. Thereafter, in March, 1960, the petitioner was appointed as the Sub-Divisional Officer Purela sub-division in the Uttar Kashi District but his appointment was not approved by the Public Service Commission, because he did not possess the requisite qualification and experiencehe being merely an Intermediate whereas the minimum qualification for that post was a Bachelor's degree. The petitioner was accordingly withdrawn from the post of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The State Government issued a G. O. dated 13th December, 1962 dispensing with the services of the petitioner as a Regional Tourist Officer. Similar orders were passed in the case of four other persons who were working as the Regional Tourist Officers at Hardwar, Lucknow, Varanasi and Agra. By a subsequent notification dated March, 9, 1963, the aforesaid G. O. was cancalled, in which the petitioner was described as an approved candidate for the post of Regional Tourist Officer. That notification reads: "Government order No. 872 (iii) TR/XXX-B-46-TR/62 dated December 13, 1962 relating to Sri J. C. Pant, an approved candidate for the post of Regional Tourist Officer is hereby cancelled. Sd/- S. N. Mehrotra Sanyukt Sachiv." Thereafter, by a notification dated April 1, 1965, the petitioner was posted at Chamoli as District Supply Officer/Town Rationing Officer. Unfortunately, his appointment as District Supply Officer was also not approved by the Public Service Commission. Subsequently, he was withdrawn from the post of District Supply Officer and was posted as Regional Tourist Officer Pauri, by an order dated December 22, 1969, passed by the State Government. The petitioner joined this post on January 7, 1970. This appointment of the petitioner was made on an ad hoc basis. The petitioner made a representation protesting against his appointment on an Ad hoc basis. This was followed by a notification dated February 10, 1970 issued by the State Government appointing the petitioner as Regional Tourist Officer at Pauri. In that notification there was no mention that the petitioner was appointed on an ad hoc basis. On 6th August, 1970, the petitioner was transferred to Nainital as Regional Tourist Officer. Later, on September 3, 1971 an advertisement appeared for the selection of candidates for three posts of Regional Tourist Officers at Pauri, Lucknow and Delhi, The petitioner also submitted his application and appeared before the Public Service Commission for interview but unfortunately, he was rejected. On April 23, 1972 the State Government passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged this order of the State Government by means of this petition.
(3.) True, the termination order is innocuous in terms terminating the petitioner's services by giving one month's salary as provided in Appointment (B) Department Notification No. 230/II-B-1953 dated 30th January, 1953. The petitioner has put in nearly 22 years in Government service, holding different kind of posts in different Departments but the fact remains that he was never confirmed and he remained temporary. Ordinarily, such an order cannot be interfered with howsoever hard may be the case, because the Government has the right to terminate the services of a temporary employee by giving one month's notice without assigning any reason. But in this case, it is clear from the counter-affidavit of Suresh Chandra Sharma that the Government terminated the services of the petitioner because he was not approved for the post by the Public Service Commission. One of the arguments of the petitioner is that he had already been approved for this post in an earlier interview held by the Public Service Commission where although he was not selected but was approved for appointment and was placed in the reserve list. Although an attempt has been made in the counter-affidavit to say that in the Notification dated March, 1963 issued by Sri S. N. Mahrotra, Sanyukt Sachiv, the petitioner had wrongly been described as an approved candidate for the post of Regional Tourist Officer yet the fact remains that he was placed in the reserve list, as has been admitted in paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Suresh Chand Sharma. From paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is clear that the Government had in consultation with the Public Service Commission issued certain instructions with regard to the recruitment by selection otherwise than by open competition. These instructions clearly contemplate that the Public Service Commission shall approve a larger number of candidates than are needed to fill the existing vacancies. Such candidates who are approved for appointment but not selected for the posts are placed in the reserve List and the Government is expected to make appointments from this reserve list in future as and when the vacancies occur. It is not necessary for such a candidate to reappear before the Public Service Commission for a second time. Petitioner protested and made a representation to the Government that he should be exempted from interview. However, he did appear as a precautionary measure and his representation was rejected. To my mind, it is clear that the State Government erred. In the circumstances it was not necessary for the petitioner to have appeared for a second time before the Public Service Commission and the Government could, if it so liked, appointed him straghtway. But due to an erroneous impression the petitioner was asked to appear before the Public Service Commission once again.;