- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate and Sri Anil Kumar for the Corporation.
(2.) The petitioner, who was initially appointed on the post of Hotel Manager in the U. P. State Tourism Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, in the year 1978, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years on 31-3-06. On 11-5-06, the Chairman of the Corporation issued an order of re-employment of the petitioner for a period of two years in the interest of the Corporation, in anticipation of the approval being granted by the Board of Directors, The Board of Directors, vide resolution dated 27-9-06, did not grant approval. The reason for not granting approval, as reflects from the resolution, is that the Chairman was not having any authority to make such an appointment and, therefore, the said order was void ab initio. As a consequence to the aforesaid resolution, the order passed by the Chairman, re-employing the petitioner, has been cancelled vide order dated 20-11-06 issued by the Managing Director.
(3.) The petitioner feels aggrieved by the aforesaid order of cancellation of his re-employment and challenges the same mainly on the following grounds:- (i) The Board of Directors in fact has not considered the grant of approval but has refused/cancelled the re-employment on the ground that Chairman was having no authority to make such an appointment; (ii) The Chairman was fully competent to make such an appointment in accordance with Rule 18 read with Rule 28 of the Service Rules but this fact has been incorrectly considered by the Board of Directors; and (iii) Though reasons have been given by the Chairman in the order of re-employment as to why the petitioner should be given re-employment but these reasons have not been considered at all.;