S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner.
(2.) Petition in band is directed against the order dated 30-4-1988 (Annexure 4) whereby the petitioner's services were terminated.
(3.) It transpires from the record that the petitioner was initially waking in the department on Daily Wage basis. By order dated 10 3-1986, he was appointed to the post of Head Chaudhari as a consequence of the incumbent having retired from service. The appointment letter (Annexure 1 to the petition) is eloquent of the fact that the appointment was made in regular scale and on probation of 90 clays. Subject, of course, to the postulates that as and when regular appointment to the post of Head Chaudhari w as made, the services of the petitioner would automatically come to an end. By order dated 19-6-1986 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), the petitioner was however transferred to the post of Mali against a vacancy which occurred due to promotion of the incumbent namely Raj Nath to higher post It is evident that the post of Mali occupied by Raj Nath was a substantive post and the appointment of the petitioner to the said post vide order dated 19-6-1986. was on regular basis. It was however indicated in the order dated 19-6-1993 that in the event of reversion of Raj Nath from the post of Head Chaudhary to his substantive post of Mali the services of the petitioner would automatically come to an end. The order dated 19 6-1986. was modified by means of the order dated 24-7-1986 and the petitioner was attached to the office of Zila Udyan Adhikari Jaunpur against a vacancy in the office of Zila Udyan Adhikari Varanasi. The termination of petitioner's services by means of the order dated 30-4-1988 without assigning any reason, cannot be sustained in law. The statement made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not appointed against any clear vacancy, car.not be lapped up in view of the facts stated supra. Further the reversion of Rajnath Chaudhari to the post of Mali would not tell upon the petitioner's services having regard to the fact that by order dated 24-7-1986, the earlier order dated 19-6-1986, whereby the petitioner was appointed in a vacancy which occurred due to promotion of Raj Nath Mali was modified and the petitioner was attached to the office of Udyan Adhikari Jaunpur against a vacancy existing in the office of Udyan Adhikari Varanasi. It has not been stated in the counter-affidavit that the post of Mali in the office of District Udyan Adhikari, Varanasi against which the petitioner was attached to the office of District Udyan Adhikari Jaunpur, was abolished. In the facts and circumstances of the ease, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.;