- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 3 & 4, and Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 6.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner, who was a clerk in Nagar Nigam, Bareilly, was sent on deputation to the State Urban Development Agency (for short 'SUDA') and was posted as Assistant Project Officer in District Urban Development Agency (for short 'DUDA'), Rampur vide order of Additional Director, SUDA dated 28th June, 1996, until further orders. Later on, he appears to have been transferred from DUDA, Rampur to DUDA, Farrukhabad.
(3.) HOWEVER , by an order dated 8th May, 1998, the Director of SUDA, in reference to the letter dated 18th April, 1998 of District Magistrate/Chairman DUDA, Farrukhabad as well as his own letter dated 28th June, 1996, repatriated the petitioner to his parent department on the ground that his services were not found satisfactory. In pursuance of the said order, the District Magistrate/Chairman DUDA, Farrukhabad, vide his order dated 12th May, 1998 relieved the petitioner from DUDA, Farrukhabad to join his original post of clerk in the parent department i.e. Nagar Nigam, Bareily. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid order of his repatriation dated 12th May, 1998 (referred in the writ petition as order of reversion). Initially, the challenge in the writ petition was on the ground that the repatriation of the petitioner was in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and the same had actuated with malice and ulterior motive. However, no person was impleaded by name as respondent.;