- (1.) K. S. Rakhra, J. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 16-1-1989 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal-Ill, Lucknow allowing the claim petition of the opposite party No. 1 and setting aside the order of termination of his services.
(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The opposite party No. 1 was appointed as a temporary Tax Collector in Zila Parishad, Shahjahanpur, vide order dated 18-1-1975 copy of which is Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The appointment was purely temporary and was against a temporary post. His services have been terminated by an innocuous order dated 23-2-1981 a copy of which is Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. The order says that the services of the opposite party No. 1 are no more required and, therefore, they are terminated after giving one month's notice. The opposite party No. 1 challenged the order of termination before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal on the ground that he was a permanent and confirmed employee of the petitioner. He was appointed on probation with effect from 1-4-1979 and that the period of probation was one year. On expiry of the period of probation he become permanent employee and, therefore, his services could not be terminated by a simple notice as mentioned above. Before the Tribunal, it was admitted by the petitioner, that although the temporary appointment was given to the petitioner in they year 1975, he was appointed on probation for one year with effect from 1-4-1979. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the opposite party No. 1 could not be deemed to have been automatically confirmed on the post after expiry of one year period and that the period of probation which could be extended under Rules, by one year shall be deemed to have been extended. Since the services were terminated on 23-2-1981 i. e. before the expiry of deemed extension of probation for one year, the services could be terminated in the manner they have been done by giving one month's notice.
(3.) THE Tribunal was of the opinion that after expiry of one year probation period prescribed under Rule 28 of the U. P. Zila Parishad Service Rule, 1970, the probation could be extended only by a written order because the Rule provided that the Appointing Authority may in special cases, extend the probation for a total period not exceeding one year. It was further of the opinion that the termination order, passed almost 11 months after expiry of period of probation was bad as it was not passed within a reasonable time after expiry of one year probation. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that this finding of the Tribunal is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court.;