LAXMAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Magistrate, Almora obtained approval of twenty posts of Patwaris from the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow. These twenty vacancies were advertised. The petitioner appeared in the test and was finally selected and placed at serial No. 4 of the merit list. The selected candidates were required to undergo training etc. in January, 1996. In the meantime in 1997 Bageshwar which was part of Almora was created as a new district. The petitioner was appointed as Patwari in district Bageshwar by order dated 23-12-1998 issued by District Magistrate, Bageshwar. One Ram Dutt Pandey who was promoted as Supervisor Kanungo on ad-hoc basis in district Bageshwar was reverted back to the post of Patwari. The District Magistrate, Bageshwar passed an order on 21-7-1999 that in view of reversion of Sri Ram Dutt Pandey the petitioner, who is the junior most Patwari be dismissed from service. It is this order dated 21-7-1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Bageshwar which has been challenged in the instant writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri C.D. Bahuguna, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Even though the respondents have not clearly admitted that 24 posts of Patwari's were approved for Almora and petitioner was placed at serial No. 4 but these facts are clear from Annexure-2 and Annexure-4 of the writ petition. In the appointment letter it was mentioned that the petitioner was a trained Patwari. It is further clear from paragraph 24 of the writ petition that the petitioner was placed at serial No. 4 in the merit list of twenty Patwaris. It has been alleged by the petitioner in paragraph 24 that candidates who were junior to him and were placed at serial No. 5 to 13 in the select list of Patwaris prepared in 1996 are still working whereas the petitioner, who is at serial No. 4 of the select list, has been dismissed from service. This paragraph 24 of the writ petition has been replied in paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit wherein the facts stated in paragraph 24 of the writ petition have not been disputed. But it is alleged that the list was for district Almora. Reliance is also placed on appointment letter that the petitioner was appointed temporarily as a result of ad-hoc promotion of Sri Ram Dutt Pandey. It is true that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary as a result of ad hoc promotion of Sri Ram Dutt Pandey. But it being admitted that the petitioner was selected against twenty approved posts for district Almora and the juniors to him in that list have been retained the question is whether the termination of petitioner is in accordance with law. The petitioner was undoubtedly selected by the District Magistrate, Almora. He was a trained Patwari. It is not claimed by the respondents that after creation of district Bageshwar the selection made by District Magistrate, Almora was decided to be of no good for Bageshwar. In the circumstances it would be unfair and unjust to dispense with services of petitioner when juniors to him have been retained. In the circumstances the impugned dismissal order dated 21-7-1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Bageshwar cannot be upheld.

(3.) This writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 21-7-1999 passed by District Magistrate, Bageshwar dismissing the petitioner from service, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is quashed with all consequential benefits of service of the petitioner. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Patwari and pay his entire arrears of salary within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon respondent No. 1.