J. C. Gupta, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of termination dated 16.3.88 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has further prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise petitioner's services on the post of Agriculture Teacher.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on the post of Agriculture Teacher under the Education Scheme No. 11 by means of appointment order dated 11.7.71. He joined the services on 17.7.71 in the Higher Secondary School, Musapur District Budaun. Since then, he was continuously working to the satisfaction of his superior officers without any complaint. His services were abruptly terminated by the impugned order after when the petitioner had put In about 17 years of service. Before the Impugned termination order, the petitioner was even allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar. According to the petitioner, under the aforesaid Scheme, twenty five persons were appointed, out of them twenty two persons have been confirmed, but not the petitioner and his services have been terminated by a discriminatory action. THE impugned order of termination shows that the only reason given therein is that the petitioner's services were no longer required. THE Scheme was very much alive and the vacancies were in existence. Thus, there is no rational reason for terminating the services of the petitioner. THE State Government by means of G. O. dated 20.11.79 once again reiterated the Government stand relating to the temporary employee by making a categorical statement to the effect that the matter regarding confirmation/regularisation was unnecessarily delayed. A direction was issued to the Heads of various departments not only to confirm the Government employees working over three years, but also to get temporary posts declared permanent. Another G. O. dated 19.8.81 was issued emphasising that the entire benefits almost at par with those provided to permanent employees should be extended to all such temporary employees, who had completed three or more years of regular service. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the department. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis with the condition that his service could be terminated at any time after giving one months' notice. It Is further stated that like other temporary employees, the petitioner's case for regularlsation was also considered by the Selection Committee under the provisions of U. P. Regularlsation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on posts outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. However, he was not found suitable for regularlsation as there were adverse entries In his character roll in the years 1973-74 to 1979-80. As the petitioner was not found suitable for regularlsation, his services were terminated by the impugned order. In the supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, it Is stated by the petitioner that as per the performance sheet, his performance was cent percent in the years 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The adverse entry of 1978-79 was expunged by the D.D.R., Meerut.
(3.) THE petitioner's counsel and the standing counsel have been heard at length. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Servsri Paras Nath Bhartiya and Satya Deo Mishra, who were also appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis like that of petitioner and whose services were also terminated by an identical order, challenged their termination by filing Writ Petitions No. 20231 of 1988 and 5789 of 1988 respectively. Both the writ petitions have been allowed by this Court by different Benches on 15.1.93 and 13.7.95 respectively. The Judgment given in Writ Petition No. 20231 of 1988 is an unreported decision, while the judgment passed in the other writ petition has been reported In 1995 AWC 1800. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner's case is identical to that of the aforesaid persons, the impugned termination order is liable to be quashed and the petitioner entitled to regularisation.;