- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner was ap pointed on ad hoc basis as Class IV employee (Farrash) in the Civil Court, Deoria on 1. 9. 1976. By an order date 1. 9. 1987 (Annexure 1 to the petition) passed by the District Judge, Deoria, the petitioner's service was regularised alongwith five other employees, in which the petitioner's name figured at serial No. '5' while that of one Sri Sachi tanand at serial No. 6. It is further alleged that the said appointment was made against clear vacan cies. By an order dated 12. 4. 1989 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the District Judge, Deoria, the petitioner's service was terminated with immediate effect without assigning any reason. It is this order which has been challenged by means of present writ petition.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner having been senior to the said Sachitanand, his services cannot be terminated, retaining the said Sachitanand a junior person to the petitioner, on the principle of last come first go' and, as such, the order is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In support of this contention Sri A. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Om Prakash Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Develop ment Corporation, (1991)2 UPLBEC 967 (SC); and Shivbaran Singh v. Sub Divisional Officer, Bindki, (1992)1 UPLBEC 583 (SC ). Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed without any opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner though the appointment was made against a clear vacancy. Thirdly, he contends that be cause there was certain allegation against the petitioner, as contended by the respon dents in the counter-affidavit it was even more necessary to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, This contention of Sri A. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is sought to be supported by citing decisions in the case of Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of UP. and others (1991)2 UPLBEC 1180. Relying on the counter-affidavit the learned Standing Counsel contends that no reason for terminating the services of the petitioner is required to be given because of the provisions contained in Para 1099 of the Manual of the Government Order though the work and conduct of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Para 3 of the Temporary Government Servant (Termina tion of Services) Rules, 1975 ( here in after referred to as 1975 Rules) the services of the petitioner being temporary service can be terminated with the month's notice or notice pay in lieu there of which has since been complied with. However, it was ad mitted that some of the juniors to the petitioner were still in service but the prin ciple of 'last come first go' is not applicable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. After the termination of service of the petitioner two courts of Addl. District Judge were transferred and shifted to the Courts of Additional District Judge at Agra and Ghaziabad, resulting in reduction of Class-III and Class-IV posts and by reason there of three more Class-IV employees were also retrenched during the period of two months after termination of service of the petitioner. In that view of the matter the grounds taken by the petitioner cannot be sustained.
(3.) BY means of rejoinder-affidavit the petitioner has sought to contend that para 1099 of the Manual of Government orders, does not apply to the case of the petitioner. According to him with regard to the ter mination of service of a temporary employee 1975 Rules does not apply. The other Class IV employees whose services were dispensed with were not similarly situate w ta that of the petitioner. The retention of the juniors to the petitioner was elaborated in the sup plementary-affidavit filed on 17th April 1992.;