C.D.Sahgal, J. - (1.) The petitioner was an Assistant Clerk in the Zila Parishad of Barabanki having been appointed as such in the year 1951 to that post in the District Board, Barabanki. There is a controversy in the case as to whether be was initially appointed as an Assistant Clerk or was only an officiating Assistant Clerk, but there is no dispute that he was appointed as an Assistant Clerk in the District Board, Barabanki which office he continued to hold when the District Board of Barabanki was replaced by the Zila Parishad of Barabanki.
(2.) On the 4th of June, 1964 he applied for one years leave of absence without pay. His application was, however, rejected. He again applied for the reconsideration of the application but in that application he also stated that in case the leave was not granted, his resignation may be accepted. His resignation was accordingly accepted by the Adhyaksha of the Zila Parishad. But he made an appeal against the acceptance of his resignation to the Commissioner, Faizabad Division which appeal was allowed. He received communication of the allowing of his appeal on the 13th of May, 1966. He claims that it was received by him on that date at 3-25 P. M. The office of the Zila Parishad was closed on the 14th of May, 1966, being a Saturday, and on the 15th of May, 1966, being a Sunday. On the 16th of May, 1966 he claims to have submitted his joining report to the Adhyaksha at 10-00 A. M. On the same day, however, he received an order of the Adhyaksha purporting to be of the 14th of May, 1966 to the following effect: "You are hereby informed that your services are no longer required by the Zila Parishad and are herewith terminated. You are given 3 months pay in lieu of 3 month's notice". It is this order of the Adhyaksha respondent that is challenged in this writ petition and is sought to be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
(3.) It has been pointed out in the petition that the order terminating the services of the petitioner was arbitrary and contrary to law, that it was illegal and without jurisdiction, that in view of the petitioner being a permanent employee he could not be dismissed or removed from service without a reasonable opportunity being afforded to him to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, that the termination of the services of the petitioner was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that in view of the fact that the post held by the petitioner is still in existence and has not been abolished, the removal of the petitioner was illegal.;