A.N. Dikshita, J. - (1.) The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13-2-1975 passed by Sri K.C. Jain Civil Judge, Deona dismissing the appeal preferred by the State of U.P. and another against the judgment and decree dated 14-2-1974 by which Sri K.D. Rai, the then Munsif, Deoria had decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Facts in brief giving rise to the instant controversy are that the plaintiff-respondent was appointed as a Money Tester in the Government Treasury in August 1953. He was appointed as a collection Tahvildar on 2-2-1954 temporarily but continued to work on this post till 20-6-1960 when his services were dispensed with. However, he was again appointed to the said post on 19-10-1965 and again his services were terminated w.e.f. 8-2-1969 Aggrieved by the order dated 8-2-1969 by which his services were terminated and which was communicated to the plaintiff respondent, on 27-3-1969 a suit for declaration was filed which was decreed by the learned Munsif and the appeal against such judgment and decree dated 14-2-1974 was dismissed by the Civil Judge Deoria vide judgment and decree dated 13-2-1975, thus giving rise to this second appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellant State of U.P. and another has urged that the courts below erred in law in holding that the termination of the plaintiff-respondent was illegal. It has been urged that the appointing authority of the plaintiff-respondent was the Collector who had exercised his powers in dispensing with the services of the petitioner.;