B.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned termination order dated 4th September, 1982. The factual gamut revealed by the record of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on 3rd October, 1978 as Stenographer on temporary post vide appointment letter issued by the District Judge, Etah which is contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. The terms and conditions of the appointment letter provides that the services of the petitioner are purely temporary and liable to be terminated without notice at any time. The petitioner further claims that the learned District Judge had held a test in November, 1978 in which three persons including the petitioner appeared and he was found suitable in the said test and thus selected. The said alleged test was held on 6th September, 1978 as the Government of Uttar Pradesh had created 51 temporary post of Stenographers to facilitate Chief Judicial Magistrate of 50 district of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur. However, the petitioner himself has contended that the said 51 post were temporary and had been sanctioned for a specific period which was extended from time to time. The petitioner, however, made various allegations of mala fide of very serious nature against Sri B.G. Saxena, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah. As the petitioner has, choosen not to implead Sri B. G. Saxena as respondent in this petition, it is not permissible for this Court to take notice of the said allegations. The petitioner further claims that on 27th February, 1979 he proceeded on leave for his marriage and the leave had been sanctioned but the learned District Judge vide order dated 27-2-1979 terminated his services without giving any notice to the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the petitioner made a representation on the administrative side of this Court, and this Court vide its order dated 3rd March, 1981 quashed the order of termination passed by the learned District Judge dated 27-2-1979 and reinstated the petitioner with back wages. The said order is contained in Annexure 8 to this writ petition. It appears from the record that this Court held an enquiry against the then District Judge of Etah and the petitioner happened to be one of the witnesses against him. Petitioner was not paid the back wages etc., as directed by this Court, vide its order dated 7th March, 1981, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No. 3904 of 1982 and this Court passed the order on 25th August, 1982, contained in Annexure 14-B to this Writ Petition, to make the said payment forthwith. The petitioner lodged an F. I. R. on 22nd July, 1982 against the then District Judge and other officers on various allegations and on 4th September, 1982 the services of the petitioner were terminated. The said termination order is contained in Annexure 16 of the writ petition. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavits wherein they have denied the fact of any personal bias or malice against the petitioner.
(2.) The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Mo. 1 is to the effect that no test was ever held for the appointment of the petitioner and the petitioner was never appointed in regular manner after selection. The work and conduct of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and sub-sequently two tests were held for making the regular selections and in spite of the notices to the petitioner he did not appear in either of the said tests. The respondents have filed the select lists prepared on the basis of the said test which are dated 3rd December, 1981 and 16th January, 1982. The said select lists are contained in Annexure Nos. S. C. A. I and S. C. A. II. The specific averments in the counter-affidavit have been that in spite of the notice to the petitioner to appear in the said tests the petitioner did not participate the said tests and thus question of selection of the petitioner on regular basis did not arise.
(3.) The counter-affidavit filed further revealed that the petitioner was not efficient in his work and he was not found suitable and thus the District Judge after taking the prior permission of this Court on the administrative side resorted to the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called the 1975 Rules) and declaring the petitioner as surplus terminated the serviced of the petitioner holding that his services were no more required. In the counter-affidavit it has further been explained that the persons whom the petitioner claims to be juniors to him and further alleged that they have illegally been retained by the respondents are in fact those persons who had been duly selected vide aforesaid selection lists prepared on 3rd December, 1981 and 16th January, 1982 (Annexures S. C. A. I and S. C. A. II).;