ANIL KUMAR AZAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are three in mber, were appointed in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Chhibramau in district Kannauj. Petitioner No. 1-Anil Kumar Azad who happens to be a scheduled caste was appointed as Mandi Assistant on 14.6.1996 and he joined on the said post on 17.6.1996. Ram Kishore, petitioner No. 2 belonging to the backward class was appointed as Mandi Sahayak by order dated 14.5.1997. He joined on the same date. Ahsan Ali, petitioner No. 3 was appointed as Mandi Abhirakshak on 8.9.1997. Pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government on 12.2.1999 and the resolution adopted by the Mandi Parishad on 9.3.1999, the services of all the three petitioners were terminated by separate orders dated 15.3.1999, copies whereof are Annexures-6A, 6B, 7A and 7B. They were paid one month's salary in lieu of police besides the requisite amount of compensation.

(2.) The petitioners have alleged that their past antecedents have been neat and their work and conduct have been quite satisfactory. Therefore, there was hardly any occasion to terminate their services as their appointments were made till the regularly selected candidates were available to replace them. The validity of the Government Order dated 12.2.1999 on the basis of which the resolution was adopted by the Mandi Parishad and the termination orders were passed by the Mandi Samiti has been challenged on a variety of grounds.

(3.) The stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioners were appointed in temporary capacity and on a fixed remuneration as a stop-gap arrangement on a clear understanding that their services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice and since the petitioners had no right to the posts on which they were appointed, they cannot complain against the orders by which their ad hoc appointments have been brought to an end.