B.K. Roy, J. - (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner is to quash the decision taken by the Cantonment Board of Varanasi in its meeting held on 30th October/1st November, 1985, terminating his service after holding his reply to the show cause notice to be not satisfactory, as contained in letter No. E -9/51/SI Can/Office of the Cantonment Board, Varanasi dated 6.11.1985 (copy appended as Annexure -11). The submission. Shri Budhwar, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submitted as follows: (i) the Cantonment Board had committed an apparent error in thinking that the petitioner had filed his reply to the show cause notice No. E. 9/51/SI/Can dated 10.10.1985 (Copy appended as Annexure -6) whereas infact the truth was that vide his letter dated 20.10.1985 (Copy appended as Annexure -7) he had requested to furnish him copy of the employment exchange letter No. T -51/54/565 dated 18.12.1984 as well as earlier letter, if any, and true copies of the letters of the Board in reference to which the employment exchange had issued letter No. T -50/84/565 dated 18.12.1984 to enable him an opportunity to understand the case in true perspective and to submit his reply to the show cause notice, and (ii) the stand taken by the Cantonment Board that the petitioner lacked requisite qualification namely of having inter alia I.S.E. Degree as per the rules is utterly misconceived and not tenable in the eye of law inasmuch as the only essential qualification which was required, as intimated to the Employment Exchange, Varanasi, was to have a training of Sanitary Inspector of any recognised institution vide Annexure -1 to the writ petition and the petitioner having obtained such a training from Sanitary Inspector's Training Institute, Delhi had made an application for his appointment as a Sanitary Inspector of the Cantonment Board, through the Employment exchange, Varanasi, which Was accepted, which meant that the rigidity of the Rule referred to in the counter affidavit was relaxed and, accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on that grounds.
(2.) SHRI S.D. Dube, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, on the other hand contended as follows: (i) under Rule 5 -B(iii) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 read with letter No. 24328/PC/SI/LC dated 16.6.1979 of the Director, DL and O, Central Command the petitioner ought to have a I.S.F. Degree and other requisite qualifications mentioned in the show cause notice, which he did not possess and accordingly his services were validly terminated. In this context he also placed reliance on a decision of the apex court in Smt. Ravindra Sharma and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1994 AIR (SCW) 3438, (ii) Neither there is any provision of relaxation of the Rules nor has the petitioner ever made any application for relaxation of any alleged Rules. There was no question of any deemed relaxation. The employment exchange did not send the full particulars of the petitioner and thereby by mistake he was appointed but when that mistake transpired it was rectified, (iii) Exercising powers under Section 52 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 under which an authority is vested in the Chief of the Command to cancel any illegal resolution of the Board as the petitioner lacks requisite qualification, vide his letter dated 14.8.1985 (copy appended as Annexure -6 to the counter affidavit) he held the resolution of the Board appointing the petitioner as illegal (iv) For the aforementioned reasons this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. Shri Budhwar, in reply, contended as follows: (a) the petitioner was never communicated of the decision taken vide Annexure -6 to the counter affidavit of the respondents and accordingly it cannot be relied upon by the respondents before this court, (b) No answer has been and could be given in regard to the non -furnishing of the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In fact in the meeting of the Cantonment Board itself one of its members dissented by pointing out this infirmity, (c) During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner obtained the degree in science by appearing in the Intermediate Examination, 1987 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. (d) Recognition of only 2 of the institutions imparting training to Sanitary Inspectors was itself illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as other Institutions including one from which the petitioner obtained necessary training of the Sanitary Inspector stand recognised throughout the country but all those have been arbitrarily excluded. My Findings.
(3.) FROM perusal of the letter Annexure -7 I find that the petitioner had not furnished his reply to the show cause rather he has prayed for grant of an opportunity to enable him to have copies of the documents to understand the case in its true perspective. Thus rejection of his request, treating it to be his reply to the show cause, was manifestly illegal.;