SANJAY MISRA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and 3.
(2.) HE controversy involved in this writ petition does not involve any factual dispute and the respondents do not intend to file any counter affidavit since the facts are not in dispute and the petitioner may substantiate any facts averred in the writ petition on the basis of the record. The petitioner claims to be appointed on temporary basis as a Gardner (Class-IV post) on 14.01.2003 by the District Judge, Jyotiba Phule Nagar under Rule 4 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the '1955 Rules') and confirmed on the post by the order dated 27.05.2009. He is aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the District Judge whereby he has been 'ceased to work with immediate effect', an order passed in view of the direction issued by the High Court on 05.11.2009 and on the basis of a report dated 13.11.2009 submitted by a Committee appointed by the District Judge. He has assailed the order dated 18.11.2009 in this writ petition.
(3.) SRI Budhwar has argued that the petitioner was appointed under Rule 4(3) of the 1955 Rules on temporary basis on a Class -IV post and his services were confirmed by an order dated 27.05.2009 hence he acquired the status of a permanent employee. His services could not be terminated in the manner as has been done particularly when his work and conduct has always been good and satisfactory and he has never been subjected to any disciplinary proceedings whatsoever. He has submitted that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice since he was not given any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing. He also submits that once his services were confirmed by the Competent Authority then the Authority had no power to review his decision particularly when there is no such power conferred under the recruiting Rules. He has further argued that under Rule 4(3) of the 1955 Rules the District Judge on his discretion can recruit Chaukidars, Malies, Waterman and Sweepers and when the District Judge on his discretion appointed the petitioner as Mali (Gardner) there was no illegality in it.;