SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the Petitioners of these seven writ petitions, who were appointed as temporary Forest Guards by the order dated 13th September, 2007 to fill the backlog vacancies of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes, have sought the quashing of the office orders dated 13th July, 2010 by which their services have been dispensed with under the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The Petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 16th December, 2009 passed by the State Government for cancellation of the examination on the basis of which the Petitioners had been appointed.

(2.) An advertisement was published on 22nd May, 2007 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mirzapur for filling the backlog reserved category vacancies of Forest Guards and Driver. The Petitioners appeared at the written examination and were called for interview and physical test and were ultimately appointed by the letters dated 13th September, 2007. After completing their training, they were given various postings by the order dated 30th June, 2008. However, by the impugned orders dated 13th July, 2010 their services have been dispensed with under the Rules as they were no longer required after making reference to the communications dated 16th December, 2009 of the State Government, 22nd December, 2009 of the Chief Conservator of Forest, Lucknow and 21st January, 2010 of the Chief Forest Conservator, Mirzapur.

(3.) Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the order to dispense with the services of the Petitioners under the Rules has been passed on the basis of the communication dated 16th December, 2009 sent by the State Government which is based on the inquiry report dated 28th August, 2009 placed before it but the said inquiry report does not point out any such irregularity/illegality in the conduct of the examination which could have prompted the State Government to cancel the entire examination. Elaborating his submission he pointed out that the inquiry report dated 28th August, 2009 does not find any of the seven allegations in the complaint to be established, but still the State Government observed in the impugned order dated 16th December, 2009 that prima facie irregularities were proved in the recruitment of the Forest Guards. He has, therefore, submitted that the decision of the State Government conveyed through the letter dated 16th December, 2009 to cancel the examination deserves to be set aside and consequently the order dated 13th July, 2010 passed for dispensing of the services of the Petitioners on the basis of the said decision also deserves to be set aside. It is also his submission that the complaint was made regarding the conduct of the examination not by any candidate who had appeared at the examination but by one Ex-Forest Officer-Teju Prasad, who had no concern with it, and it is on the basis of such a complaint that inquiry was conducted and that the appointment of the Petitioners could not have been cancelled without giving opportunity to the Petitioners.