Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by an order of termination of his services the petitioner has preferred this writ petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Before formal admission of the case appearance on behalf of opposite-parties I and 2 has been put in through a counsel. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the opposite-parties in reply where of the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we propose to dispose of the writ petition finally.
(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Sales Officer by the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. in January, 1970. In April, 1971 the petitioner was promoted in the higher grade of Assistant Sales Officer. The posts of Assistant Sales Officer (in the higher grade) were re designated as District Sales Officer sometime in 1983. The petitioner thus also came to be designated as District Sales Officer. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition it has been stated that a proposed seniority gradation list was published containing the names of 43 District Sales Officer in which petitioner's name was placed at serial No. 6. The case of the petitioner is that all of a sudden the petitioner received an order dated 26-12-1985 terminating his services from the post of District Sales Officer. A true copy of the order of termination has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
(3.) A perusal of Annexure-5 shows that the services of the petitioner were terminated ;n terms of Rule 23 of the U.P. State Agio Industrial Corporation Ltd. General Service Rules, 1984 by giving three months salary to the petitioner in lieu of notice. The order of termination says that the services of the petitioner were no longer required by the Corporation, hence his services were an applied with immediate effect.;