GANGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of a learned Judge dated 16 October 1959 dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) In 1948 the appellant, who was at that time about 21 years of age, was appointed a paid apprentice in the Collectorate, Etah. Shortly thereafter he was suspended in connexion. with an embezzlement case in the department, but he was reinstated to his post on 2 November 1953. On 20 March 1955 he was placed on probation for six months and at the expiry of that period the Collector confirmed him in his post as a paid apprentice. The maximum age for appointment was 25 years, and as by that time the appellant was 27 years old the Collector wrote to the Board of Revenue in February 1956 asking that he be exempted from compliance with the age-limit. On 5 June 1956 the Administrative Member of the Board of Revenue refused to grant exemption in the case of the appellant, although he allowed exemption in the case of another paid apprentice in the same office. A representation made by the appellant for reconsideration of his case was also rejected by the Administrative Member on 22 June 1956. The appellant then filed a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in which he prayed that the orders of the Administrative Member dated respectively 5 and 22 June 1956 be quashed by a writ of certiorari and that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Administrative Member and the Collector not to discriminate against the appellant in the matter of exemption from the age-limit. That petition was dismissed and an appeal against the order of dismissal (Special Appeal No. 62 of 1958) has been dismissed by us today.

(3.) On 9 August 1956 the Collector directed that the appellant be reverted from his permanent post but should continue as a temporary paid apprentice. The appellant appears to have continued as such until 1 July 1958 when he received a letter from the Collector informing him that his temporary services were terminated with immediate effect and that he would receive one month's pay in lieu of notice. This letter followed a formal order made by the Collector on 27 June 1958 that the appellant's name be removed from the list of paid apprentices.