BHARATI SAPRU, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K. S. Rathor and learned Standing Counsel Shri P. P. Srivastava for the State.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18. 3. 1988 passed by the respondent No. 5 Senior Superintendent of Police, by which the petitioner was removed from his temporary service as a Police Constable. The second prayer of the petitioner is that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service and grant him all benefits in accordance with law. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 16. 10. 86 for the recruitment of Police Constables. At the bottom of the advertisement, a note was appended that the recruitment, which was being made to this advertisement be of a temporary nature and as and when vacancies occur, those persons who are selected would be adjusted. Other conditions imposed are passing of the fitness test and character classification, for which, the selected recruitment was not given to him.
(3.) THE petitioner also appeared and was selected. His name was found at Sr. No. 97 in the select list dated 1. 1. 87. The petitioner was sent for training and, thereafter, was sent to Meerut at the Reserve Police Line, Meerut. It is the petitioner's case that he has joined his duties as Police Constable but without any notice or opportunity of hearing, the petitioner was declared to be relieved on account of his alleged failing in the examinations during the training. He was informed by the impugned letter dated 18. 3. 88 that he was being relieved on account of the fact that he had failed in the training and, therefore, he was being relieved. The petitioner's contention, therefore, is that his removal was illegal and bad and violative of Regulation 541 of the UP. Police Regulations and in view of this, the petitioner started making representations to the Director General of Police for redressal of his grievances. The petitioner has appended Annexures to the writ petition being Annexure Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 all his representations which were made over a period of three years and because the same was not decided, he ultimately filed this writ petition, after a period of three years, claiming relief as stated in the above noted paragraphs. The petitioner has also claimed parity in the writ petition with other recruits who approached this writ Court and whose petitions were allowed in their favour.;