- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24-9-1984 passed by opposite party No. 3 terminating the services of the petitioner and the judgment and order dated 6-6-1988 passed by U. P. Public Services Tribunal rejecting the claim petition of the petitioner.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal in officiating capacity in the vacancy caused by promo tion of Sri Babu Lal to the post of Consolidator in officiating capacity on 16-12-1982. Thereafter, several persons, namely Sri Sant Ram, Sri Bhudev, Sri Chander Bhan Singh, Sri Brijesh Kumar and Sri Krishan Swarup Sharma were appointed as consolidation Lekhpals in the depart ment. IT was on 4-9-1984 that Babu Lal was promoted to the post of Consolidator in district Aligarh as it is evident from Annexure 2 to the rejoinder-affidavit. On 24-9-1984 the services of the petitioner were terminated. IT was also stated that order of reversion was passed against Babu Lal by the District Magistrate on 28-9- 1984, a copy of which has been filed along with the counter-affidavit as Annexure-1. Chal lenging the validity of order of termina tion, the petitioner filed claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. IT was pleaded that persons who were junior to the petitioner and were appointed after his appointment, were retained in service and the services of the petitioner were terminated arbitrarily. The order of ter mination was, therefore, liable to be set aside. On behalf of the contesting respondents, written statement was filed before the Services Tribunal pleading that the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis and his services were ter minated in the terms and conditions of the appointment letter on reversion of Sri Babu Lal to the said post. Therefore, there was no illegality in the order of termina tion and the claim petition was liable to the dismissed. The parties produced evidence in support of their cases and the Tribunal after perusing the evidence on record dis missed the claim petition by judgment and order dated 6-6-1988, hence the present petition has been filed.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order of termination passed by respondent No. 3 was wholly illegal and without juris diction inasmuch as there were several persons who were junior to the petitioner but were retained in service and the ser vices of the petitioner who was senior to those persons were terminated. THE order of termination was thus hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It has also been urged that the Tribunal has noticed the wrong facts in the order and also came to wrong conclusion. It was pointed out that the date of alleged order of reversion is 28- 9-1984 while the Tribunal with a view to justify its order has noticed the said date as 22-9-1984, therefore, it was urged that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel supported the validity of the impugned orders. It was submitted that the petitioner was appointed on pure ly temporary and ad hoc basis, his services were liable to be terminated in the terms and conditions of the appointment order and the same were, therefore, rightly ter minated. The Tribunals has also not com mitted any error of law in dismissing the claim petition filed by the petitioner.;