VIKRAM SINGH NEGI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CHAMOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, order of termination of services of petitioner dated 13th September, 2005 and order dated 13th September, 2005 intending to recover the excess payment are challenged. The fact, as it appears from the records, is as follows:-

(2.) In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the whole idea to terminate the services of the petitioner after the earlier judgment was rendered was to fill up post regularly, as such, advertisement was issued. Five candidates participated in the selection process whereas the petitioner did not do so. The five candidates have been appointed.

(3.) Mr. Subhash Upadhayaya, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State fairly submits that the post now being occupied by the petitioner is substantive and lying vacant and it was not intended to fill up as the matter was pending before the Court. He also submits that no selectee is waiting to be appointed to this post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 has no manner of application as the petitioner was not holding any civil post. On this, I have now been called upon to decide whether the aforesaid Rules applies or not.