Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) Admitted facts in the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as routine grade clerk on 10.8.1970 by the U.P. State Electricity Board and was promoted to the post of Junior Noter and Drafter and thereafter to the post of Senior Noter and Drafter on 30.12.1985. The Public Service Commission, U.P. issued an advertisement in year 1986 for a appointment of seven Inspectors of offices in the Administrative Reforms Department alongwith the other posts. The advertisement provided that the candidates must be permanent Government servant with atleast 15 years continuous service. The petitioner claiming himself to be duly qualified for such appointment, made application and was selected and was issued appointment letter dated 13.9.1988. The petitioner made some representations seeking certain clarifications as regards the counting of period of service under the said Electricity Board while considering the benefits in respect of new employment. By order dated 3.2.1989 the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and challenging the same this writ petition was filed.
(2.) The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 filed counter affidavit and a separate counter affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner disclosed from very beginning that his service under the U.P. State Electricity Board was the basis of the claim of the petitioner as regards his having qualification under the advertisement of remaining Government servant for 15 years. The appointment letter itself indicated that the petitioner was described as an employee under the UP. State Electricity Board at "Gorakhpur. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in such admitted factual background the respondents could not cancel the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not a Government servant by reason of his appointment under the U.P. State Electricity Board and such cancellation of appointment without giving any opportunity to the petitioner is in violation of the Principles of natural justice.;