CHANDRA BHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 9-6-1989 (Annexure IV) passed by the respondent no. 3 Joint Director, Technical Education (Eastern Region), Varanasi (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents/opposite parties not to interfere with the working of the- petitioner on the post of Office Draftsman Mechanical Government Polytechnic, Basti, (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no. 3 from terminating the services of the petitioner; (iv) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Office Draftsman Mechanical in the Government Polytechnic, Basti on 4-11-1987 and he joined his post on 11-11-87 (see Annexure 1 to the writ petition). According to the petitioner his work was satisfactory and the Principal of the institution gave him additional charge of security and sanitary arrangement. He has also placed reliance upon the G. O. contained in Annexure III attached with the writ petition for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. In para 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has asserted that there are five zones in the state and for every zone., there is a joint Director who is the appointing Authority for the post over which the petitioner was employed. In para 7 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner that similar employees of other rones are continuing in service. THE petitioner has also characterised the Impugned order terminating his services as illegal and without jurisdiction as the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is entitled to the benefits provided by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been suggested that the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 are likely to oblige another ad-hoc appointee and with that end in view the termination of the petitioner's services is wholly illegal and unwarranted.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we think that this writ petition deserves to be allowed on short ground. In para 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that similarly placed employees as the petitioners, are continuing in service in other zones. Vide para 7 of the counter affidavit the content of para 7 of the writ petition have been replied in the following words :-