- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Petitioner, by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20-4-1983, whereby the claim petition of the petitioner was rejected by the U. P. Public Service Tribunal (I), Lucknow and the order dated 23-1-1987, whereby the service of the petitioner were terminated by the Director of Education, U. P. Allahabad, in exercise of power under U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.
(2.) IN brief the relevant facts of the case are that it was in the year 1967 that the petitioner was appointed as a typist in the U. P. Board of Technical Education, Lucknow and was later on confirmed on the said post. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Junior Asstt. on regular and per manent basis. The post of Senior Asstt. (Confidential) in U. P. Board of High School and INtermediate Education fell vacant. The petitioner applied for the appointment on the said post and appeared in the competi tive examination in which he was selected for appointment on the said post. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Asstt. (Confidential) in the office of respondent No. 3 against the reserved vacancy for the scheduled caste which was a clear and sub stantive vacancy on probation of 2 years. The petitioner joined the post of Senior Assistant (Confidential) on 9-3-1977. It is claimed that the service record of the petitioner was unblemished and he per formed his duties honestly and with sin cerely, to the satisfaction of his superior officers. It is however, alleged that one Shri K. C. Sharma, Section INcharge of Section No. 2, bore illwill and animosity towards the petitioner about which the petitioner also complained to the competent authority; but the petitioner, at the instance of Shri K. C. Sharma, was transferred to Section No. 6 from Section No. 2. On 15-10-1977 Shri K. C. Sharma was manhandled by some other persons but the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case under Sec tion -332. IPC. It is alleged that it was at the instance of Shri K. C. Sharma that a notice dated 25-1-1987 was got published in the news-paper whereby the services of the petitioner were purported to have been ter minated in exercise of power under U. P. Temporary Govt. Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975, although the said rules had no application in the present case. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the respondent No. 1 pleading that the petitioner was a permanent Government servant and not a temporary employee. The respondent No. 2, therefore, had no juris diction to terminate the services of the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under the law. The claim petition filed by the petitioner was contested by the respondents pleading that Rule 55 of (U. P.) CCA Rules was not applicable in the present case and that services of the petitioner were terminated in accordance with law. The claim petition filed by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner, there after, approached this Court and filed the present petition. The writ petition was filed and ad mitted in 1983; notice meant for respon dents were served upon learned Standing Counsel ; but till date no counter-affidavit has been filed. However, pleadings of par ties filed before U. P. Public Service Tribunal are on the record. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the provisions of U. P. Government Temporary Servants (Ter mination of Service) Rules, 1975 for short 'the Rules' had absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. The respondent No. 2, therefore, had no jurisdiction to ter minate the services of the petitioner in exer cise of power conferred upon it under the said rules. It was urged that in accordance with the provisions of CCA Rules, it was obligatory upon the respondent No. 2 to supply to the petitioner the complaint, if any, made against him and to afford an op portunity to the petitioner to explain his case before passing the order of termina tion. Reliance in support of the said sub mission was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision in Dr. (Mrs.) Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1989 SC1431.;