High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
A.K.Malaviya, Surendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 55110 of 2003  RD-AH 3419 (23 September 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55110 of 2003
State of U.P. and others..................................................Respondents.
Heard Sri A.K.Malaviya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
An advertisement was made on 30.8.2001 inviting applications for the post of Stenographer in which the petitioner applied and was appointed on a temporary basis by an order dated 11.12.2001. The fact, that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis, on a substantive vacancy, on the basis of an advertisement issued on 30.8.2001, is admitted by the respondent in their counter affidavit. The petitioner's services were dispensed with under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules of 1975 by an order dated 17.11.2003 on the ground that his services are no longer required. The petitioner has challenged this action of the respondents by means of this writ petition.
In the counter affidavit, the respondents have alleged that the services of the petitioner was not extended by the State Government. From a perusal of the Annexure CA-1, dated 29.5.2003, it transpires, that one additional post for appointment on the post of Stenographer was requested by the authorities in September, 2001. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit it is alleged, that there was only one post in which Sri Rajesh Misra was working. It is not known as to whether Sri Rajesh Misra was working on a substantive vacancy or that Sri Rajesh Misra was duly recommended by a Selection Committee or not. In any case, the stand taken by the respondents, that since there was only one vacancy and, since Rajesh Misra was working earlier, therefore, the services of the petitioner was dispensed with, is wholly incorrect, inasmuch as, the respondents have not denied, that pursuant to the vacancy advertised in August, 2001, the petitioner was appointed by an order dated 11.12.2001. Further from a perusal of Annexure CA-1 it indicates, that based on an additional requirement of a stenographer an advertisement was issued in August, 2001 in which the petitioner was selected. The vacancy referred in the counter affidavit cannot obviously relate to the vacancy in which the petitioner was appointed. Consequently, the order dismissing the petitioner is wholly erroneous and is set aside.
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.11.2003 is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post on which he was working.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.