S.H.A Raza, B.K. Singh, JJ. - (1.) The admitted case of the parties is that the services of the petitioner who was working as Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department, was regularised on 23-2-1980 but it has been averred in counter affidavit that after regularisation the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary capacity on temporary post in a temporary vacancy. Alongwith the petitioner, services of several persons were regularised but the services of the petitioner was only terminated and this fact is admitted in the counter affidavit. This fact has not been disputed that the services of other persons below the petitioner have not been terminated but the petitioner cannot claim parity for the reason that he was awarded an adverse entry for the year 1974-75 and a C. B. I enquiry was also conducted against the petitioner in respect of his work relating to the construction of transport bridge over river Jamuna at Kalpi. According to U. P. Regularisation of ad hoc Appointment Rules. 1979 which came into force with effect from 14th May, 1979 it was provided that the persons who were in service on 1st January, 1977 and completed three years of service were to be regularised in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said Rules. However, Rule 8 of the aforesaid Regularisation Rules, is being produced below as it is relevant for deciding the case : "Rule 8 - Termination of services. - The services of a person, appointed on ad hoc basis who is not found suitable, or whose case is not covered by sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of these rules, shall be terminated forthwith and, on such termination, he shall be entitled to receive one month's pay."
(2.) In view of the fact that the regularisation under these rules would be deemed to be under the relevant Service Rules, it cannot be said that if, the services of a person is not regularised then his services could be terminated by giving him a notice purporting to one under Rule 5 of U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules 1975. If the petitioner was not suitable to be regularised in service, his services could have very well been terminated in accordance with the Rule 8. But if the service has not been terminated in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 8 he would be deemed to be regularised and his services cannot be dispensed with without giving him an opportunity to show cause as contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid situation the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of termination of the services of the petitioner dated 5-4-1980 contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, is hereby issued. However, it will be open to the opposite parties to proceed in accordance with law. Petition allowed.;