- (1.) DILIP Gupta, J. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28th June, 1995 by which the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Maharajganj (hereinafter referred to as the 'chairman') has cancelled the temporary appointments of the petitioners made on 15th March, 1995 and terminated their services with immediate effect on payment of one month's salary.
(2.) THE issue involved in this petition is regarding certain appointments made in the year 1995 in the Zila Panchayat, Maharajganj (hereinafter referred to as the 'zila Panchayat' ). THE Selection Committee met on 11th March, 1995 for recommending the names of the candidates for the post of Second Grade Clerk, Cashier and Tax Inspector and on the basis of the names recommended by the Selection Committee, petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 were appointed as Second Grade Clerk while petitioner Nos. 8 to 11 were appointed as Tax Inspectors by the appointment order dated 15th March, 1995 that was issued by the Chairman. It was specifically mentioned in the appointment order that the appointments were purely temporary in nature and the candidates were also required to produce the certificates/documents mentioned in the appointment order along with their joining reports. On the basis of the aforesaid appointment order, the petitioners started working. Subsequently the impugned order dated 28th June, 1995 was issued by the Chairman mentioning that the procedure prescribed for making the selection had not been followed as neither wide publicity, as was required, was given to the advertisement and nor was the selection conducted by the Selection Committee in accordance with prescribed procedure. THE Financial Advisor, Zila Panchayat, Maharajganj and the Finance Officer, Zila Parishad, Lucknow also raised serious objections about the legality of the appointments. It is this order dated 28th June, 1995 that has been impugned in the present petition. I have heard Sri Arvind Srivastava and Sri K. M. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the procedure as prescribed under Rules 21 and 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') for making the appointments had been followed by the Zila Panchayat and, therefore, the averments to the contrary made in the impugned order were against the records. He pointed out that on 1st March, 1995 the Chairman had sent a communication to the Hon'ble Minister for grant of sanction of 9 posts and permission to make appointments and even though the Hon'ble Minister concerned had sent the letter dated 8th March, 1995 to the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat to initiate the steps for making appointments in anticipation of the creation of the posts, yet prior to that telephonic information had also been given by the Hon'ble Minister to the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat on 1st March, 1995 to start the procedure for making the appointments and in pursuance of the aforesaid telephonic conversation, information had been sent to the Employment Exchange on 2nd March, 1995 to send the list of the candidates and since the list was not received from the Employment Exchange, advertisement was issued in the daily Newspaper 'rashtra Chinha' on 4th March, 1995 mentioning there that the last date for receipt of the application forms was 8th March, 1995 and the Selection Committee meeting would be held on 11th March, 1995. He, therefore, submitted that Rule 22 had been complied with and, therefore, there was no infirmity in the selection procedure. He further submitted that after the approval to the creation of the posts and for making appointments had been granted by the State Government by the letter dated 14th March, 1995, the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat issued the order on 15th March, 1995 appointing the petitioners on temporary basis even though all of them should have been given substantive appointments. Learned Counsel also submitted that the order dated 28th June, 1995 was liable to be quashed as it was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing and that as the 20 appointments made in Zila Panchayat, Gorakhpur on the basis of the same selection held on 11th March, 1995 had been confirmed, the Zila Panchayat, Maharajganj acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner in cancelling the appointments and not confirming the services of the petitioners.
(3.) SRI B. D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel for the Zila Panchayat submitted that District Maharajganj had been carved out from District Gorakhpur by the notification issued in October, 1989 and even though there were surplus staff in the Zila Panchayat, yet it sought creation of posts and that too without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 as neither any approval of the Commissioner had been sought for creating the posts and nor such a proposal was moved by the Mukhya Karya Adhikari before the Karya Samiti or placed before the Board. He defended the order dated 28th June, 1995 and submitted that the procedure adopted for making the selections was contrary to the procedure provided for in Rules 21 and 22 since the vacancies had not been advertised in the manner provided for under the Rules and in fact there was no publicity at all and that in such cases, opportunity of hearing was not required to be given and that if the appointments were illegal, the question of any discrimination vis-a-vis, the employee of the Gorakhpur Zila Panchayat did not arise at all. He further submitted that extraordinary haste had been shown in making the selections by the then Chairman of the Zila Panchayat as the appointments could not have been made after 20th March, 1995 since the elections had been notified by the Election Commission on 20th March, 1995. He also submitted that the appointment of the petitioners had not been made on 15th March, 1995 but had been antedated as is apparent not only from the telex sent by the Hon'ble Minister to the Chairman to meet him in Lucknow on 18th April, 1995 at 11. 00 a. m. to discuss the appointments of the candidates but even the documents/certificates which were required to be submitted as per the appointment orders were submitted subsequently and even the attendance of the petitioners for the month of March and upto 21st April, 1995 was not marked in the regular attendance Register in which the names of 16 employees of the Zila Panchayat was mentioned but a fresh attendance register was prepared from 1st March, 1995 to 31st December, 1995 to show their names as in the old attendance register there was no place for addition of the names of the petitioners. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.;