- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Kumar Singh for the contesting respondent.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 12-7-2006 passed by the respondent No. 4 and the consequential order dated 14-7-2006 by which the petitioner has been reverted to her Seasonal Clerk post. The petitioner was appointed as a Seasonal Clerk in the Co-operative Cane Development Society Limited Khadda in Kushi Nagar. By an order dated 19-7-2005 she was given the post of a regular clerk in the regular Establishment in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1,500 on which basis she joined and continued to work. By the impugned orders she has been reverted back to the Seasonal Cadre and the order dated 19-7-2005 has been cancelled. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without giving any notice or opportunity to her.
(3.) THE services of the seasonal as well as the permanent staff of Cane Development Societies are governed by the U. P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975. It is provided therein that 50% post of the permanent cadre is to be filled up through direct recruitment while the remaining 50% is to be filled up by preferment from the seasonal staff. Regulation 41 provides that appointment by preferment from the seasonal staff shall be based on the position of the incumbent on the basis of their respective seniority. In the counter-affidavit a copy of the seniority list of seasonal staff prepared at the regional level and which was circulated vide order dated 27-12-1997, has been filed. The name of the petitioner finds place at serial No. 455. It is stated that petitioner was illegally appointed in the regular cadre superseding 454 persons and, thus, when this anomaly was noticed, she was relegated to the seasonal cadre by the impugned order. Though much emphasis has been laid on an order dated 14-11-2005 (Annexure 7 to the petition) to contend that the petitioner was placed at serial No. 3 in the seniority list and, therefore, was rightly appointed, but the argument is totally misconceived. A perusal of the order shows that it is only an order granting promotional pay scale to seasonal employees of the Society who had completed 16 years of continuous satisfactory service and it is not a seniority list. Neither there is any specific denial to the seniority list filed alongwith the counter-affidavit nor any other seniority list has been annexed. Therefore, it is apparent that the order dated 19-7-2005 granting appointment on the permanent strength of the Society was against the specific provisions of Regulations 40 and 41 of the Regulations.;