CHANDRIKA PRASAD Vs. U P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a member of subordinate agricultural services group III, Agriculture Department of the State of U. P. He filed the claim petition before the U. P Public Service Tribunal against fixation of seniority. The claim petition was heard on 10-9-87 and the judgment was reserved. After the judgment was reserved the State filed an order dated 23-7-87 before the Service Tribunal and on the basis of this order the petition was dismissed by the Service Tribunal vide order dated 15-9-87. As the order of the Tribunal was passed on the basis of the order dated 23-7-87 which was filed before the Tribunal after arguments were over and regarding which the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard, the petitioner made an application for recalling the aforesaid order. Service Tribunal has rejected that application vide order dated 5-5-88 on the ground that as the order which was filed after argument is an order passed by the Government it does not make any difference as to whether petitioner was given any opportunity to rebut it.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion the impugned orders of the Service Tribunal are absolutely without jurisdiction. It is true that order dated 23-7-87 is an order of the Government but it ought to have been filed before the arguments and petitioner was entitled to have his say against that order. Petitioner could have challenged that order by means of amendment. It is not open to Service Tribunal to rely on any order or document in rejecting the petition which was filed after the arguments were over. The fair play and principle of natural justice demanded that Tribunal should have re-heard the matter after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner against the aforesaid government order.

(3.) THE petition is accordingly allowed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.