- (1.) This special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9 October 2015 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution has been dismissed.
(2.) At the outset, we may briefly indicate the basis of the case of the appellant in the writ proceedings. The case of the appellant is that he was working as a Sinchpal in the Irrigation Department (Tubewell Division IV Agra) and was attached to the Assistant Engineer. According to him, the State Government initiated steps for filling up the quota of posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes. Since he was already working in the office of the Executive Engineer and belongs to a Scheduled Caste, one post for Scheduled Caste candidates was lying vacant (out of 229 sanctioned posts) against which he was appointed on 24 February 1990. The specific case of the appellant was that his appointment was against a permanent post. On 19 February 1992 his services were terminated by the second respondent by treating him to be a temporary employee. The termination was challenged on the ground that his appointment was against a clear permanent vacancy and that he could not be terminated under the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. A counter affidavit was filed by the Assistant Engineer in which it was stated that the appellant was appointed on a temporary post of Sinchpal on 26 February 1990 and was posted to work as Tubewell Operator. The counter affidavit denies that the appellant was appointed on a permanent post. Similarly, it has been denied that there were 229 sanctioned posts of Sinchpal and it was averred that there were only two sanctioned posts in the Division of which none was reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. In the rejoinder which the appellant filed, he sought to contend that prior to 26 February 1990, he had worked on a temporary basis at Orai and Jalaun Divisions and that thereafter in 1990 he was appointed on a permanent basis on the vacant post of Sinchpal and since then he was continuing.
(3.) The petition was filed in 1992 to challenge the order of termination dated 19 February 1992. During the pendency of the writ petition, a learned Single Judge while issuing notice had directed that the operation of the order of termination shall remain stayed. When the petition was heard on 29 August 2013, it came to be allowed with consequential benefits. Observing that the appellant had continued on the strength of an interim order dated 27 March 1992, the learned Single Judge had held thus: "It is not disputed that on the strength of the interim order of this Court, the petitioner has been continuously working on the post of Sinchpal/Tube Well Operator and getting his salary regularly month to month on the post in question, till date and, accordingly, after a lapse of huge period of 21 years, it is not appropriate in the fitness of things to examine the validity of appointment of the petitioner on the post held by him and thereby take a contrary view to oust him from service.";