R. H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.11.1980, whereby the claim petition filed by the contesting respondent No. 1, against the order of termination dated 23.5.1975 was allowed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal-IV, Lucknow (from hereinafter referred to as the tribunal).
(2.) THE brief facts, which are relevant for the purposes of resolving the controversy involved in the case are that in the year 1963 the respondent No. 1 was appointed as supervisor in the temporary capacity on an ex-cadre post. It was on 1.4.1971 that the said respondent was appointed as junior engineer on a probation of one year along with fifteen others. THE period of probation of the respondent No. 1 was not specifically extended, but he was permitted to continue till 23.5.1975 when his services were terminated by means of the said date, which is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. THE respondent No. 1 challenged the validity of the order of termination before the tribunal by means of Claim Petition No. 502/T/4/1979. THE tribunal allowed the claim petition of the respondent No. 1 by its impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.1980. THE operative portion of the said judgment and orders reads as under : "THE petition is allowed and it is held that the termination order dated 23.5.75 was invalid and the petitioner shall be deemed to have remained in continuous service. He shall be entitled to the salary and allowances. THE petitioner is awarded costs of this petition." I have heard learned standing counsel for the petitioners and Sri Yatindra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 1 was appointed in temporary capacity but on probation. His period of probation was never extended and as the work of the said respondent was not found satisfactory, and further since there was no need of his services in the department, his services were dispensed with in accordance with law. In lieu thereof the respondent No. 1 was allowed one month's salary vide order dated 23.5.1975. Placing reliance on Rule 23 of the U. P. Subordinate Engineering Services Rules, 1951 learned standing counsel submitted that the Chief Engineer never found the respondent No. 1 fit to continue on the said post, and his integrity was also not certified. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 cannot claim himself to be in continuous service. The view taken to the contrary by the tribunal was manifestly erroneous and illegal.
(3.) ON the other hand Sri Yatindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that in view of Rules 19, 20 and 23 of the said Rules and in view of the interpretation of the said rules given by this Court in the case of Peshawari Lal v. State of U. P., (1979) LU 240, the tribunal has rightly accepted the claim of the respondent No. 2 and rightly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1. He has also referred to and relied upon the other decisions in support of his submission that the respondent No. 1 shall be deemed to have been confirmed on the post of junior engineer on expiry of the period of probation, and his services could not be terminated arbitrarily by means of a non-speaking order. Said decisions are of Apex Court in the cases of State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 (ii) SC 1210, and State of Maharashtra v. Neerappa R. Saboji and another, AIR 1980 SC 42. The Rules 19, 20 and 23 of the U. P. Subordinate Engineering Services Rules, 1961 are relevant for the purposes of the present case, which are being quoted herein below: "19. Probation.- A person on appointment in or against a substantive vacancy shall be placed on probation for a period of two years. 20. Extension of the period of probation-The Chief Engineer may extend the period of probation in Individual cases from time to time but except with the sanction of the Governor not for a period exceeding two years in the aggregate. The order shall specify the exact date up to which the extension is made. 23. Confirmation.- Subject to the provisions of Rule 22, a probation of shall be confirmed In his appointment at the end of his period of probation or extended period of probation, if the Chief Engineer considered him fit for confirmation and his Integrity is certified." ;