- (1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. Five petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of U. P. Public Services Claim Tribunal (I) Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'tribunal') dated 13-8-1985 passed in claim No. 94 (i) of l9w-'hridayanand Tewari v. State Government through its Revenue Secretary.
(2.) THE facts necessary for the decision of the writ petition, are being succinctly noticed herein below. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as survey kanungo and joined his duties on 22-5-1978, the petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 13-12-1977. the petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 1-5-1977, the petitioner No. 4 was appointed on 27-4-1978 and the petitioner No. 5 was appointed on 27-4-1978. All the petitioners were appointed on the post of Survey Kanungo by the record officer, Gorakhpur on temporary basis against the clear and permanent vacan cies. The contention of the petitioners is that they performed their duties satisfactorily almost for a period of three years, despite it, the services of the petitioners have been arbitrarily terminated by a composite order dated 18-8-1981. The petitioners made representation against the aforesaid order to the Board of Revenue, which was rejected by it on 6- 9-1982. The peti tioners challenged the aforesaid order by filing a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal on the ground that the termination order has been passed against them in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The claim was contested by the State respondents. The tribunal has rejected the claim petition vide order dated 13-8-1995 after perusing the record of the petitioners and coming to the conclusion that the performance of the petitioners was not satisfactory. The order of termination was a simple order of termination. The petitioners, being temporary Govern ment servants, had no right to continue in service. The aforesaid order of the tribunal is under challenge in the present writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri R. S. Misra at great length and the learned standing counsel.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted that the public services tribunal has recorded the finding after looking into the service record of the petitioners but the finding recorded by the public services tribunal are perverse and are contrary to the service record perused by the public services tribunal. I directed the standing counsel to produce the service record of all tae five petitioners (sic) to allay this grievance. The record has been so produced by the learned standing counsel. The main contention, which requires examination in the present matter is, as to whether the order of termination has been passed by way of punishment or the order is a simple order of termination.;