MOHAMMAD JAMIL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri L.R. Khan, appearing for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) By order impugned herein, the petitioner's appointment has been cancelled on the premises that the appointment was irregular. The petitioner has been accordingly given notice of termination by the self-same order in exercise of power under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.

(3.) The petitioner, it appears, was appointed as a Class 3 employee in the Collectorate Mahoba. At the time of his appointment on regular basis, he was above the prescribed maximum age of 32 years. The petitioner was given regular appointment on 25/26.6.96. It would transpire from the record that a show-cause notice dated May i, 2000 was served to the petitioner calling upon him to explain the circumstances under which he was inducted in the service albeit he had already crossed the rubican of upper age limit of 32 years. The petitioner demanded certain papers for enabling him to file his reply but those papers were not supplied as a consequence of which he preferred a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2000. This Court by interim order dated 16.5.2000 provided that the petitioner may file his reply to the show-cause notice but the decision that may be taken by the competent authority would be subject to the final result of the writ petition. The petitioner was, however, accorded opportunity to apply before the concerned authority for supply of necessary papers and copy of the enquiry report. The Court in its order dated 16.5.200 had made it explicit that it entertained no doubt that "if such an application is moved, the respondents shall furnish all those papers to the petitioner. Notwithstanding specific directions, papers demanded by the petitioner were not furnished and instead he was ingeniously offered to inspect the record. Thus, in my opinion, the order of the Court was not observed in compliance and the respondents ultimately proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner by the impugned order dated November 4, 2000 in exercise of power under the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.