- (1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 31.12.1997, cancelling petitioner's appointment as well as the consequential order of the District Magistrate dated 6.1.1998.
(2.) Petitioner contends that the post of Junior Clerk, reserved for SC/ ST category candidates was advertised as backlog vacancy by the office of the District Magistrate, Mau on 15.7.1997. Petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement. The appointment to the post was required to be made in accordance with the provisions of 'The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices ( Ministerial Staff) Direct Recruitment Rules, 1985'. Rule-17 of the Rules of 1985 required constitution of selection committee to undertake recruitment . It is not in dispute that the District Magistrate constituted selection committee, which was to be headed by Additional District Magistrate ( Finance & Revenue). Annexure-4 to the writ petition is an order, which clearly mentions that the District Magistrate on 25.7.1997 has constituted the selection committee in terms of Rule-17. The selections were accordingly held in which petitioner was selected and an order of appointment was issued by the office of District Magistrate, Mau in favour of petitioner on 10.9.1997, which was signed by the Additional District Magistrate ( Finance & Revenue).
(3.) Petitioner, pursuant to his appointment, offered his joining, which was accepted and the petitioner started working. It was, thereafter that the District Magistrate, passed the order impugned, holding that the appointing authority of the petitioner in terms of Rule-4A was the District Magistrate and his presence was also required, in the selection proceedings. It has also been stated in para-8 of the counter affidavit that the District Magistrate was the authority competent to have issued an appointment order, based upon selection proceedings in which the District Magistrate was also required to be present and as the order has been issued by the Additional District Magistrate, the same is illegal.;