- (1.) This petition is directed against the order of Superintendent of Post Offices, Sitapur Division, dated 3-10-1973, terminating the petitioner's services.
(2.) Applications were invited by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sitapur Division, for the appointment of Extra-departmental Post Master, Parsola, Hardoi. The petitioner and opposite party No. 2 Ajai Pal Singh both applied for the said post. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Sitapur Division, selected the petitioner and by his order dated 22-1-1973 appointed him provisionally on the said post subject to the verification of his character. The order of appointment, further directed that the petitioner's services shall be governed by the Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964. It appears that Ajai Pal Singh filed certain representation, (which has been described as appeal by the opposite party No. 2) before the Central Minister of Communication. That representation or appeal, whatever it may have been, was referred to the Director General of Post Offices who accepted the claim of Ajai Pal Singh and directed the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sitapur Division, to terminate the petitioner's services and to appoint Ajai Pal Singh opposite party No. 2. Thereafter the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sitapur Division, issued the impugned order dated 3-10-1973, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Director General of Post Offices, terminating the petitioner's services. Aggrieved the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the said order.
(3.) The petitioner was appointed provisionally to the post of extra-departmental post-master. His services were regulated by the Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964, Rule 6 makes provision for termination of service. It lays down that the services of any employee, whose terms and service conditions are regulated by those Rules, can be terminated within three years of his appointment on the ground of his unsatisfactory work or on any other administrative grounds or exigencies, which may not be connected with his character and conduct, without assigning any reasons. Rule 6 thus confers power on the appointing authority to terminate the services of an employee within a period of three years from the date of his appointment if his work is not found satisfactory. Further, the services can be terminated on the ground of administrative exigencies. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on this rule, but in the counter affidavit it has not been asserted that the petitioner's work was unsatisfactory during the period he worked as extra-departmental post master. There is further no averment in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties that termination of the petitioner's services was necessary on any administrative grounds. On the contrary, the counter affidavit sets out a case that appeal of Ajai Pal Singh, opposite party No. 2, was allowed by the Director General of Post Offices and he issued a direction for the termination of petitioner's services and for the appointment of Ajai Pal Singh in the vacancy so caused. It was in these circumstances that the impugned. order of termination was passed. These facts do not make out any case for exercise of power under rule 6. The impugned order is thus not sustainable under that rule.;