R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 3.4.1981 passed by Respondent No. 1 dismissing his claim petition.
(2.) IT was on 22.11.1972 that the Petitioner was appointed as temporary clerk in the health department. Lie lies been working in the department continuously. No complaint whatsoever was made against his work and conduct. It was on 3.9.197G that the services of the Petitioner were terminated for his unsatisfactory work. The services of several similarly situated persons were also terminated whose names have been mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 11 to the writ petition. On 19.5.1977. a Government Order was issued by the Respondent No. 2. In the said Government Order, it was provided that in the event services of Government servants were terminated on account of unsatisfactory family planning work, they were liable to be reinstated. Some of the persons namely Ram Sakal Gupta and others were reinstated on She basis of the said Government Order. It is alleged that the services on the Petitioner were also terminated on account of unsatisfactory family planning weak, therefore, he repented is Opposite party Neinstall ms his ar -plication for the said purpose is alleged to have been transmitted by the opposite party No. 2 to the Chief Medical Officer for his comment. The Chief Medical Officer made his recommendation that the Petitioner be reinstated. It is statute that inspite of recommendation made by Chief Medical Officer, Respondent No. 2 did not reinstate the Petitioner and asked him to see the Commissioner, Varanasi Division. Petitioner was thus being discriminated, although his performance in comparison to other persons was better as it is apparent from the figure given in paragraph 11 to the petition, for the year 1973 -74 and 1974 -75. Petitioner further alleged that it was not correct to say that he was absent from his duty from 5.9.1974 to 18.9.1974 and the Chief Medical Officer wrongly marked him absent on those dates. It is further alleged that the representation to Respondent No. 3 was made by him on the basis of which on 28.7.1979 Respondent No. 3 directed the Respondent 2 to take steps for reinstatement of the Petitioner. Inspite of the said order, Petitioner was not reinstated, therefore, he was obliged to approach Respondent No. 1 and file the claim Petition No. 647/11/79. On notice being issued by Respondent No. 1 to the opposite parties, they appeared and filed their reply before Respondent No. 1. In the reply, as quoted in the judgment, it was stated as Under: It was further alleged that the family planning work of the Petitioner for the year 1973 -74 and 1974 -75 was not satisfactory and his explanation was also called on 20.11.74 for shortfalls in achieving the target. He was also given serious warning in December, 1975 and March, 1976. Before Respondent No. 1, on behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that the order of termination passed was wholly arbitrary and illegal. It was passed only on account of his alleged failure to achieve the family planning target. He was, therefore, entitled to take the benefit of Government Order dated 19.5.79 referred to above. Respondent No. 1, however, look the view that no material was placed before it to satisfy that the case of the Petitioner was covered by G.O. dated 19.5.79 and it was pleased to hold that the services of the Petitioner were terminated on account of unsuitability in service. Respondent No. 1 also observed that letter dated 28.7.77 of the State Family Planning and Welfare Officer was simply forwarded with the application of the Petitioner for necessary action in the light of the G.O. dated 19.5.77. Having recorded the said finding, Respondent No. 1 was pleased to dismiss the claim petition filed by the Petitioner by its order dated 3.4.81. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition was filed by the Petitioner. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It may be noted that in the present case, no counter - affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Learned standing counsel appearing in this case states that his file cover does not contain the copy of the writ petition or any paper relating to the present case, which is an indication of inefficiency of the standing counsel office of the State of U.P. at Allahabad High Court. The learned standing counsel showed his inability to assist he court.
(3.) IN view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the facts stated in the petition remained unreported. I have got no option, but to rely on the same.;