H.L.GOKHALE, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. M.S. Pipersenia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. in support of this appeal. Mr. Ashok Nath Tripathi, appears for the respondent.
(2.) THE appeal seeks to challenge the judgement and order passed by learned Single Judge on 12th July, 2005, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 29th July, 2003 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Gorakhpur. The case of the respondent was that after completing the course of Commercial Practice Stenographer Diploma, he was appointed as an Apprentice in the Irrigation Department by the order dated 7th May, 1993 issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Gorakhpur under the provisions of Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and he worked as an Apprentice in the office of the Executive Engineer, Flood Works Division, Deoria from 24th May, 1993 to 23rd May, 1994. After completing his apprenticeship, he was engaged as a daily wager in the same office for working on the Electronic Typewriter from 24th May, 1994 to 23rd September, 1994. This engagement was subsequently extended from time to time and ultimately he was appointed in the Workcharge Establishment of the office in the pay-scale of Rs.825-1200 by the order dated 11th March, 1998 issued by the Superintending Engineer. Subsequently, an office memo dated 28th December, 1998 was issued by the Chief Engineer for appointment of Junior Clerks by holding a typing test of all the eligible work-charge employees under the provisions of the U.P. Irrigation Department Ministerial Services Rules, 1971. A Selection Committee was directed to be constituted under Clause I of the aforesaid circular. Amongst others, the respondent also appeared in the test conducted by a Committee consisting of two Superintending Engineers and two Executive Engineers and he was placed at serial no.5 in order of merit and appointed as a Junior Clerk by the order dated 26th April, 1999 issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Gorakhpur. The respondent continued to work as a Junior Clerk when his services as a Junior Clerk were terminated by the order dated 21st November, 2002. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No.55172 of 2002 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2003 solely on the ground that he had not been afforded any opportunity of hearing whatsoever. It was, however, left open to the Department to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. A fresh show cause notice was then issued to the respondent to which a reply was submitted and thereafter the services were again terminated by the order dated 29th December, 2003 which was impugned before the learned Judge in the writ petition out of which the present Appeal arises.
(3.) THE aforesaid departmental order recites that a Committee of two Executive Engineers was constituted to submit the report. The Committee concluded that the engagement of the respondent as a daily wager was bad and so his appointment in the Workcharge Establishment and as a Junior Clerk automatically were bad in law. The respondent was given an opportunity to respond to the report and he filed a detailed representation. The order merely states that after perusing the report of the Committee and the reply submitted by the respondent, the report should be accepted. Accordingly, the engagement as a muster roll employee, his appointment as an Apprentice and as a Junior Clerk was set aside.;