- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 19.2.1992 whereby his services have been terminated. The further prayer prayer is that he may be allowed to work on the post of Sinchpal.
(2.) Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Class IV employee as Sinchpal in the Irrigation Department, Tube Well Division IV, Agra. It is stated that there were 229 sanctioned posts in the office of the respondents and one post of scheduled caste was already lying vacant, therefore the petitioner was appointed against the said permanent post through an appointment letter dated 24.2.1990. According to the petitioner he belongs to the scheduled caste category as per the caste certificate, filed as Annexure-3 to the petition. Certain personal allegations have been made against one Anil Kumar that since he belongs to upper caste he started terminating the services of the scheduled caste employees. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was working on temporary basis prior to his regular appointment. However, by order dated 19.2.19992 his services were terminated. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition there is a categorical averment that the petitioner was working as a permanent employee against a clear permanent vacancy and, therefore, his services could not have been terminated under the provisions of U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. It is also stated that prior to termination of the services of the petitioner no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to him and he was not informed of the reasons for termination of his services. It is also stated that the petitioner is senior to one Shri Ram Singh who was appointed in January, 1992 as a Class IV employee and who is still working and only the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with inspite of he being senior to the said Shri Ram Singh. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and in paragraph 4 thereof it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner was on the temporary post of Sinchpal vide order dated 26.2.1990 and thereafter he was posted to work as Tube Well Operator at Tube Well No. 41 Bah and he worked there till termination of his services. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that prior to his appointment on 26.2.1990 the petitioner has never worked under the respondents in any capacity. The averment that there are 229 or 329 posts of Sinchpal has also been denied. Infact it is stated that there are only two sanctioned posts of Sinchpal in the concerned Division and out of the two sanctioned posts of Sinchpal no post is reserved for scheduled caste category. It has also been denied that only one post of Sinchpal is reserved for scheduled caste candidate. It is stated that mere maintenance of service book does not imply that the appointment is on a permanent post or against a sanctioned post. Infact, no one is appointed against a permanent post directly. Instead initially the appointment is made on a temporary basis on probation of 2 years which may be extended upto one year and only thereafter on successful completion of probation of two years if the Executive Engineer considers the employee fit for confirmation then confirmation order is issued. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein it has been stated that prior to his appointment by order dated 26.2.1990 the petitioner was working on temporary basis in other Divisions for 3 years at Orai and Jalaun on temporary basis. In paragraph 9 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner was made against the scheduled caste quota. Initially the writ petition was allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 29.8.2013. However, aggrieved by the said order Special Appeal (D) No. 848 of 2014 was filed by the State of U.P. and thereafter the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Single Judge for hearing and disposal.
(3.) I have heard Shri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. According to the petitioner he was appointed as Sinchpal against a permanent vacancy and permanent post by order dated 26.2.1990. This order has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and does not mention as to whether the said appointment is on a temporary post or against a permanent substantive post. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner that there were 229 sanctioned posts and one post of Scheduled Caste was lying vacant and the petitioner was appointed against this post. Even if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted that he was appointed against a single post of Sinchpal which was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, such an appointment on the face of it would be illegal inasmuch as the law has been well settled by several pronouncements of the Supreme Court that no reservation applies to a single post and a single post cannot be filled up through a reserved category candidate and therefore the order of appointment of the petitioner itself is abinitio void and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim advantage of any such appointment and in the facts and circumstances it is quite immaterial as to whether the appointment of the petitioner was temporary or against a permanent post or permanent vacancy.;