- (1.) The petitioner is a Senior Manager (Housing) in the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur (the Corporation). An order dated 21st October 2014 was passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, in supersession of all the earlier orders, that the petitioner shall take over the charge of the office of Incharge Industrial Estate of the Corporation. This order was soon withdrawn on 21st October 2014 itself. It is the subsequent order dated 21st October 2014 that has been assailed in this petition and a direction is sought that the Managing Director of the Corporation should permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Incharge Industrial Estate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 5822 of 2014 seeking a writ of quo warranto against Arun Kumar Mishra who was posted as Chief Engineer (Project) in the Corporation as he did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post. This petition was allowed by the judgment dated 29th August, 2014 and it was directed that Arun Kumar Mishra has no authority to hold any post including that of Chief Engineer (Project) in the Corporation. It has also been pointed out that this judgment dated 29th August, 2014 was assailed by Arun Kumar Mishra before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Petition in which an interim order was passed on 25 September 2014 that the services of Arun Kumar Mishra shall be continued and the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed until further orders.
(2.) According to the petitioner, he was called by the Managing Director of the Corporation at his residence after he had joined as Incharge Industrial Estate on 21st October, 2014 where he found Arun Kumar Mishra already sitting in the drawing room. According to the petitioner, a proposal was made that the Corporation would appreciate if the petitioner did not contest the matter in the Supreme Court. This suggestion of the Managing Director of the Corporation was not accepted by the petitioner and that is why the order dated 21st October, 2014 was soon recalled by the Managing Director by passing a fresh order in the evening of the same day.
(3.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been treated fairly and as he had joined as Incharge Industrial Estate on 21st October 2014, the withdrawal of this order has led to the loss of his reputation. It is also his contention that once the Managing Director of the Corporation had appointed him as the Incharge Industrial Estate, the withdrawal of the said order in an arbitrary manner and that too without recording any reason is illegal. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girija Shankar Pant., 2000 87 FLR 877.;