Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) One Nabi Husain occupied the post of octroi inspector in the municipality of Pilibhit. He tendered his resignation. The post was advertised. The petitioner applied for it and was appointed as an octroi inspector on 29-5-1950 and was confirmed in the appointment on 29-11-1950. In the meantime Sri Kishori Lal Sondhi, who was the head clerk of respondent no. 1, the Municipal Board of Pilibhit (hereinafter referred to as the Board) was dismissed. One Rameshwar Dayal who was one of the octroi inspectors, in the employment of the Board was appointed as head clerk in the vacancy caused by the dismissal of Sri Kishori Lal Sondhi and in place of Rameshwar Dayal aforesaid one Ram Kirti Lal was promoted as an octroi inspector in the vacancy caused by the promotion of Rameshwar Dayal. In the meantime Kishori Lal filed a suit against his dismissal on the ground that the same was wrongful. The learned Munsif who tried the suit dismissed it. An appeal was filed by Kishori Lal before the learned District Judge and in appeal the decree of the learned Munsif was reversed and the suit was decreed. Thereafter a second appeal was filed by the Board in this Court. The second appeal was pending in this Court on 22nd October 1956. On that date the Board passed a resolution reinstating Kishori Lal. A copy of that resolution has been filed along with this petition and marked as annexure C. Kishori Lal took over charge as the head clerk in view of the resolution of the Board mentioned above. Rameshwar Dalal was then reverted to his original post of Octroi Inspector. The Board was then faced with a difficulty and that was that whereas there were only two posts of octroi inspectors, they had three persons to work on those two posts: they were Rameshwar Dayal, the petitioner, and Ram Kirti Lal. The respondent no. 3, the executive officer of the Board sent a letter to the petitioner informing him that his services have been terminated in accordance with the spirit of the resolution of the Board dated 22-10-1956, mentioned above. Later on he sent another letter dated 23-3-1957 informing the petitioner that his services have been terminated under the orders of the President of the Board. On these facts the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayer in the petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice terminating the services of the petitioner.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board. It is not necessary to mention all the allegations made in the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's appointment dated 29-5-1950 was made by the Acting President of the Board who was the Senior Vice President and the appointment was subject to the approval of the President. According to the counter affidavit the approval was given to the appointment of the petitioner on 11-6-1951. It is not denied that the petitioner was confirmed on 29-11-1950, but what is stated in the counter affidavit is that that confirmation was wrong. According to the counter affidavit the petitioner was confirmed later on. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that Ram Kirti Lal was confirmed on 22-7-1952 with retrospective effect from 8-4-1950, and it is further stated that Ram Kirti Lal is senior to the petitioner as an Octroi Inspector. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. It is not necessary to maintain the various allegations made in the rejoinder affidavit because in my opinion this petition can be decided on a very short point. On 1-9-1958 a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, along with which a copy of the order of the President of the Board dated 25-1-1957 has been filed. The concluding portion of that order runs as follows:- "I would appreciate and I think there is no harm if you find yourself unable to agree with the office report. You are the Executive Officer and it is not necessary that you should always agree with the reports of your subordinates but your contrary conclusions should be based on concrete grounds and rules and regulations be reported to support your view point. Under the circumstances I think that there is no other alternative but to remove the junior employee and serve him with a proper notice according to rules with immediate effect, if need be L. A. be consulted, as to all the legal difficulties which are likely to arise and prevent the Board being involved into unnecessary litigation. Sd: Chandrawati President 25-1-1957.
(3.) In the counter affidavit the case taken up by the respondents is that the post on which the petitioner was working had been abolished and consequently the services of the petitioner were terminated.;