- (1.) COMMON questions of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are working as Junior Engineer (Civil)/Junior Engineer (E/M) with U.P. Jal Nigam, hereinafter referred to as the 'Nigam'. They are aggrieved by separate termination orders dated 2.12.2014, whereby, their services have been terminated on the ground that they have been given appointments on posts which, in view of Section 3 (6) of U.P. Public Service (Reservation for S.C./S.T. and O.B.C.) Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', would fall under the reserved quota. They have also challenged the order dated 28.1.2014 passed by respondent no.4 Chairman, State Backward Class Commission U.P., Lucknow, whereby, one week's time was granted to the Nigam to prepare fresh select list and give appointment to backward class candidates.
(3.) IT seems that vide advertisement dated 10.5.2013 the Nigam advertised various posts of Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers, Assistant Geo Physicist, Assistant Hydro Geologist and Assistant Research Officer. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners applied and were selected and appointed to different posts of Junior Engineer (Civil)/Junior Engineer (E/M). One such appointment letter dated 7.10.2013 has been brought on record as Annexure -9 to Writ Petition SS No.7312 of 2014. The petitioners joined their respective posts and were working, when abruptly they were served with impugned order terminating their services on one month notice. It transpires from the record that such action is being taken on basis of directions issued by respondent no.4, taking cognizance of some complaint made before it to the effect that various backward class candidates, who have qualified on their own merit, have been wrongly adjusted against vacancies reserved for such category in violation of Section 3 (6) of the Act. In these proceedings, the Nigam undertook to revise the select list and the impugned orders appear to be a result thereof. It is contended by Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders are wholly illegal and have been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners have not been granted any opportunity of hearing. It is contended that they were selected against substantive posts and their appointments were wrongly treated as temporary, while dispensing with their services. It is further contended that in pursuance of advertisement dated 10.5.2013, selection was held category -wise and four separate select lists were prepared for each category. It was thus not through an open competition with general candidates and thus, the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are not attracted. To buttress the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2004 3 ESC 1475. It is further contended that the Commission has no authority or jurisdiction to decide the individual rights of the employees like the petitioners, nor it has any power to issue directions in this regard. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Professor Banarasi Tripathi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 1 UPLBEC 390. It is further submitted that large number of vacancies were in existence and the Nigam itself gave appointment to 136 additional reserved category candidates on 24.4.2014 and thus, the alleged mistake on its part, if any, stood rectified. There was no occasion to terminate the services of the petitioners. It is further contended that 469 vacancies are still in existence, for which advertisement was made on 3.10.2013 but no selection could be made till date. The candidates from the backward classes can be easily adjusted against these vacancies, inasmuch as the first advertisement in pursuance of which the petitioners were recruited itself mentions that vacancies can be increased or decreased. It is further pointed out that in similar circumstances, the Nigam terminated the services of one Avinash Tiwari, who was selected in pursuance of the same advertisement. He filed Writ -A No.25854 of 2014 challenging the termination order. The writ petition was allowed holding that the order terminating the service is in violation of principles of natural justice. Liberty was granted to the Nigam to pass fresh orders. Thereafter, the Nigam passed a cryptic order holding that there is no substance in the representation made by the petitioner of the said writ petition namely Avinash Tiwari. It was again subjected to challenge by him in Writ -A No.40774 of 2014. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 7.8.2014, again quashed the order passed by the Nigam, leaving it open to it to pass fresh orders. Subsequently, by order dated 27.9.2014, the Nigam again terminated the service of Avinash Tiwari for the reason that respondent no.4 had passed order dated 28.1.2014. It was subjected to challenge in Writ -A No.55886 of 2014 and again this Court, vide order dated 16.10.2014, stayed the operation of the order dated 27.9.2014. It is contended that the petitioners herein are identically situated and are thus, entitled to similar orders.;