- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Ram Kishore and fourteen others have filed a writ petition for the quashing of the order dated 7-3-2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, cancelling their appointments as Safai Karmcharis in Nagar Palika Parishad, Fatehpur.
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the petition is, that the petitioners alleged that they were appointed as daily wagers in the year 1994 to perform the 'safai work' in the territory of Nagar Palika Parishad, Fatehpur and that, since then, they had been working as daily wagers. It was contended that the State Government issued a Government Order dated 26-6-1992 directing the Nagar Palika Parishad, Fatehpur to regularise the services of the Safai Karmcharis, who were working as daily wagers continuously for three years and who had worked for 240 days in a calendar year. It was alleged that there existed thirteen substantive vacancies on the post of Safai Karamchari and, accordingly, the Executive Officer, respondent No. 2 wrote a letter dated 5-4-1999 to the Employment Exchange to provide a list of eligible candidates for filling up 13 posts of Safai Karmchari. It was also alleged that 11-4-1999 was fixed for the interview but the same was postponed. Subsequently, an advertisement dated 20-9-1999 was published in the local newspaper dated 21-9-1999 inviting applications for 15 posts of Safai Karmchari. THE advertisement indicated that the interview would be held on 3-11-1999. It was alleged that the petitioners applied for the said post and were called for the interview. THE petitioners appeared and were duly selected by a selection committee. An appointment letter dated 16-11-1999 was issued appointing them on a temporary basis for a period of one year. Based on the aforesaid appointment letters, the petitioners joined on 17-11-1999 and are working since then. The petitioners alleged that a Corporator made a complaint dated 2-12-1999 and, on that basis, the District Magistrate, by an order dated 24-12-1999, appointed the Chief Development Officer to conduct an inquiry. The Chief Development Officer conducted an ex parte enquiry dated 27-2-2000 and, on that basis, the District Magistrate issued an order dated 7-3-2000 cancelling their appointments. Consequently, the writ petition. On the other hand, Sri Virendra Kumar and 17 others filed a writ petition praying that they were working as Safai Karmcharis on daily rated basis since the year 1989 and had been performing their duties as safai karmcharis continuously for more than ten years and that their names are found in the muster roll registers. These petitioners contended that the Executive Officer clandestinely appointed 15 persons illegally without following the procedure and illegally dispensed their services. These petitioners have, therefore, prayed for the quashing of the appointments of the said persons and for the stoppage of their payments and further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise their services on the post of safai karmcharis in Nagar Palika Parishad, Fatehpur.
(3.) HEARD Sri S. F. A. Naqvi and Sri A. K. Sand, the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15413 of 2000, Sri Akhilesh Mishra, the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, Virendra Kumar and others in Writ Petition No. 2864 of 2000, Sri I. S. Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and for the District Magistrate and Sri P. K. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika Parishad, Fatehpur and the Executive Officer. Sri S. F. A. Naqvi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Ram Kishore and others submitted that the petitioners were appointed in accordance with the procedure provided under the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and that the appointing authority as well as the disciplinary authority is the Executive Officer and that the District Magistrate had no authority in law to cancel their appointments. Consequently, the order of the termination of their services was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Further, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners nor a copy of the enquiry report was supplied to them. The learned Counsel further submitted that the findings given in the impugned order that no advertisement was issued was wholly incorrect and was against the material evidence on record and that the appointments were made pursuant to the Government Order dated 26-6-1992. It was further contended that even the procedure provided under the U. P. Municipal Board Servants (Inquiry) Punishment and Termination of Services Rules 1960 was not followed.;