H. L. Gokhale, C.J. - (1.) -Heard Mr. O. P. Singh Sikarwar in support of this appeal, Mr. T. N. Tiwari for respondent No. 3, Mr. Raj Kumar Jain assisted by Mr. Rahul Jain for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Abhinav Upadhyay, learned standing counsel for the State.
(2.) THE appellant herein claims to have been working in a High School (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'institution') since 2nd July, 1979. THE said institution was upgraded to the position of High School in the year 1981 and was recognised on 8th February, 1982. THE appellant has been adjusted in a clerical capacity by the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools concerned dated 8th February, 1982. This very order was challenged by another fellow employee, who is the respondent No. 4 herein by means of Writ Petition No. 41371 of 1999 before this Court. That writ petition was heard by learned single Judge. He held that the order dated 8th February, 1982, adjusting the appellant herein on the post of clerk in the said institution is illegal and the same was a promotional post and meant for the respondent No. 4 herein. Learned single Judge therefore, set aside the order dated 8th February, 1982, passed by the District Inspector of Schools concerned. Being aggrieved by that order, the present special appeal has been filed. Mr. O. P. Singh Sikarwar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that by virtue of the order impugned in the present appeal, the appellant is being terminated from his services, though he was appointed way back in the year 1979 and this is being done admittedly without the appellant being heard.
(3.) THERE has been some controversy as to whether the appellant was joined in the proceeding. The original writ petition did not show joining of the appellant as additional respondent, but the respondent No. 4 herein moved an application for amendment and the appellant also moved an application for impleadment and both the applications were stated to be allowed by a common order. It is the case of the respondent No. 4 that the necessary amendments were carried out on 28th April, 2003. From the record, however it appears that the slip adding the name of the appellant as additional respondent is missing. THERE is no endorsement on the original writ that the appellant was joined as additional respondent. In this connection, we may observe that when any such amendment is carried out, an endorsement must be on the original proceeding. The amendment must be in the body of the writ petition and also in the prayer clause. What we find in these amendments is that the amendment is carried out by adding a slip and the endorsement of amendment is not on the body of the writ petition. Consequently, if the slip is removed, the endorsement also vanished alongwith the amendment.;