Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) THE present writ petition is filed with the following prayers: "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.7.2007 passed by respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Police (Training/Security), Suraksha Mukhyalay, Special Security Force, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (Annexure -1 to the writ petition). B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working and functioning of the petitioner and payment of petitioner, without giving any effect to impugned order dated 14.7.2009 passed by respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Police (Training/Security), Suraksha Mukhyalay, Special Security Force, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. C. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. D. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner." The basic facts which give rise to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows: "The respondent No. 3. i.e., Superintendent of Police (Training/Security), Suraksha Mukhyalay, Special Security Force, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow had advertised for recruitment on substantive basis of Class -IV employees vide advertisement dated 31.3.2003. The petitioner on the basis of the said advertisement had applied for Class -IV employee as Orderly -cum -Peon in the office of respondent No. 3. The petitioner alleged that he was selected pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement and had been assigned work but no formal appointment letter had been issued in his favour. However, appointment of the petitioner was acknowledged by the respondents as its employee, wherein his date of appointment was shown as 10.5.2003. It has also been stated that in pursuance to the advertisement, petitioner has joined the post and was continuously working since then. It is submitted that Clause 3 of the advertisement clearly stated that appointment pursuant to it was substantive in nature and the service conditions were to be governed by the statutory service regulation, i.e., Class -IV Employees Service Regulation of 1975. The salary certificate dated 6.7.2006 has also been filed alongwith present writ petition as Annexure -4 which indicate that the petitioner was drawing salary of Class -IV employee in regular scale of pay and there was no endorsement that the petitioner was employed on temporary basis. No appointment order was issued by the respondents showing him to be on temporary employee either."
(3.) THE petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the impugned order dated 14.7.2009 passed by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that without following any procedure of law and without giving any opportunity of hearing, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. The claim of the petitioner has been set out on the basis that his initial engagement was on substantive basis against permanent vacancy, admittedly advertisement took place and he faced the selection process as per law and finally had been employed in the Department. The engagement was permanent in nature and his services were governed under the provisions of Group -D Employees Service (U.P.) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as Rule, 1975). As per Clause 3 of the advertisement and as per provision of Rules 24 and 25, the services of the petitioner had to be confirmed after the expiry of the probation period. For ready reference, Rules 24 and 25 are reproduced hereinbelow: "24. Probation. - -(1) A person on appointment to a post in the establishment in a substantive vacancy shall be placed on probation for a period of one year: Provided that continuous service rendered in an officiating or temporary capacity in a post borne on the Establishment may be taken into account in computing the period of probation for that post: Provided further that the appointing authority may, for reason to be recorded, extend the period of probation up to a specified date in individual cases. (2) If it appears to the appointing authority at any time during, or at the end of, the period of probation or extended period of probation that a probationer has not made sufficient use of his opportunities or has otherwise failed to give satisfaction, he may be reverted to his substantive post, if any, or he does not hold a lien on any posts, his services may be dispensed with without entitling him to any compensation in either case. 25. Confirmation. - -A probationer shall be confirmed in his appointment at the end of the period of probation or extended period of probation, as the case may be, if his work and conduct have been found to be satisfactory, the appointing authority considers him fit for confirmation and his integrity is certified.";