Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly the case of the petitioner is that his name was recommended by the Employment Exchange Officer, Ropar, to the Director of Industries and Industrial Training, Punjab (respondent No. 2) for appointment as Punjabi Stenography Instructor. He was directed to appear for a test and interview before a Selection Committee consisting of three members. It is alleged that he stood first in the test and the interview held on May 21, 1971 and was placed at the top of the merit list. In view on his merit, he was appointed by respondent No. 2 as Punjabi Stenography Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute, Nangal vide order dated June 9, 1971 (Copy Annexure- A). It is further stated that he joined the post on June 11, 1971. Thereafter on July 24, 1971, the Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Nangal, terminated his services vide letter of even date (Copy Annexure- B). The petitioner has challenged the said order inter alia on the ground that his services were terminated by an authority who was subordinate to his appointing authority.
(2.) It is contended by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, that he was appointed by respondent No.2 as Punjabi Stenography Instructor, whereas his services were terminated by the Principal of the Industrial Training Institute, Nangal (respondent No. 3). According to him, the Principal had no power to terminate the services of the petitioner as he was subordinate to respondent No. 2.
(3.) I have given due consideration to the argument of the learned counsel and find force in it. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed by the Director as Punjabi Stenography Instructor and his services were terminated by respondent No. 3 i. e. Principal of the Industrial Training Institute, Nangal. The respondents, however, have pleaded that respondent No. 3 had been delegated the powers by respondent No. 2. The counsel for the respondents has shown to me a copy of the order dated 14th Aug., 1962 of the Director delegating the powers to the Principals of different Industrial Training Institutes to appoint and terminate the services of the Clerks/Instructors in the grade of Rs. 120-200. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that the Director had the power to delegate the powers under Punjab Industries Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1956, which are stated to be governing the petitioner. Moreover, in the order it is specifically mentioned that the powers which have been delegated to respondent No. 3 relate to appointment and removal from service of the Instructors who have got the pay scale of Rs. 120-200. In the present case the pay scale of the petitioner was Rs. 160-10-280/15- 400 (see Annexure- A). Even if it may be assumed that respondent No. 3 had the power no terminate the services of the Instructors, he could do so only of those Instructors who were appointed in the scale of Rs. 120-200. The petitioner admittedly had been appointed in a higher grade. In the aforesaid situation, respondent No. 3 could not terminate the services of the petitioner and the order passed by him is liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the writ petition with costs and . quash the impugned order dated July 24, 1971 (Annexure- B). The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential reliefs. But if he had been doing any work, that should be taken into consideration. Counsel's fee Rs. 200. Petition allowed.;