High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jai Prakash Pandey v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 8153 of 1999  RD-AH 3085 (10 February 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ petition No.8153 of 1999
Jai Prakash Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others.
Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and perused the record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. This writ petition is being decided at the admission stage in terms of the rules of the court.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the cancellation/ termination order dated 10.2.1999 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) passed by the Regional Employment Officer, Gorakhpur-respondent no.3 and with further prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as a junior clerk in the department and to pay him regular salary month to month alongwith arrears of salary.
The case of the petitioner is that he was duly appointed being fully qualified and eligible candidate by respondent no.3 vide order dated 11.11.1998 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) in pursuance thereof the petitioner joined the services and he has been continuously working till the date of cancellation of his appointment and termination order dated 10.2.1999. Under similar circumstances of the case, numbers of writ petitions have been finally allowed, i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5904 of 1999, Kumari Suman Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. and others and in W.P.No. 5974 of 1999, Yogesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others. The appointment letter of petitioner issued vide order dated 11.11.1998 by Sri O.P.Singh, the Regional Employment Officer, Gorakhpur, discloses that the appointment of the petitioner had been made from the selected list by the departmental selection committee. Such being the position the impugned cancellation order by which the services of the petitioner was terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order has civil consequence and is void and illegal, as has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S.K.Sharma, reported 1996 (3) SCC, 364. The impugned order dated 10.2.1999 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) is liable to be quashed.
In the result, the cancellation/termination order dated 10.2.1999 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue to work, and shall also be paid his entire arrears of salary with all consequential benefit in accordance with law and shall also be paid regular salary month to month.
However, it shall be opened to the respondents to proceed with any further enquiry in respect with the appointment of the petitioner.
With this direction, the writ petition is allowed. No orders as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.