Allah Raham, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.9.2005, whereby he was compulsorily retired from service and has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order.
(2.) The brief facts as alleged in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis on 10.11.1972 as Junior Engineer in P.W.D., U.P. Thereafter he was given a regular appointment as Junior Engineer on 20.12.1973 in the then L.S.G.E.D. after a due selection through U.P. Public Service Commission. Subsequently, the petitioner's appointment was made in U. P. Jal Nigam. The petitioner's work and performance of duties were found excellent by his superiors and he was awarded a promotion on 15.8.1984 as Assistant Engineer. On 13.7.1993 the petitioner was given highest pay scale on the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was again promoted on 7-1-1992 as Executive Engineer in U. P. Jal Nigam. Since the work and conduct of the petitioner had been excellent throughout his service career, he was considered for promotion to the next higher post of Superintending Engineer. This was done through a duly constituted selection committee. The petitioner was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 26.4.2000. The petitioner has pleaded that his work was appreciated by his superiors. The Commissioner of Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh vide his letter dated 3.9.2005 had highly appreciated his performance of work and duties and had recommended to the State Government for issuance of appreciation letter to him. The petitioner was also given appreciation letters dated 19.12.1992, 16.7.1998 and 21.2.2002 (Annexures No. 25, 26 and 28) respectively for excellent performance of his work and duty. The petitioner was appointed as the member of the duly constituted Selection Committee by letter dated 19.2.2001, and the letters dated 10.6.2003 and 13.6.2003, the petitioner was appointed as the member of the duly constituted Selection/Recruitment committee.
(3.) The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavit and hence contested the petition on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner has been retired compulsorily in public interest and the service record of the petitioner is average. He has obtained only 6.98 marks out of 30 marks, which is 23%. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer on the ground of seniority under reserved category, therefore, it is incorrect to say that he has been promoted on the basis of merit. Before retiring the petitioner compulsorily the entire service record of the petitioner has been considered and special emphasis was given to the petitioner for the last ten years service record. The petitioner was awarded a censure entry by office memorandum dated 31.7.1996 on the basis of certain charges were found proved against him. It has been further stated that the petitioner was given a warning by office memorandum dated 20.10.1997. The writ petition has no force and deserves to be dismissed.;