SINGARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner Smt. Singari Devi is assailing the order dated 2.8.1985 (Annexure-4) terminating her services as no longer required. The resume of the facts are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents, the petitioner applied for the post of full-time dai ; she was appointed against the substantive post of full-time dai by means of order dated 15.12.1983 (Annexure-1) in the scale of Rs. 315-440 through selection process ; her services were confirmed on completion of one year in service and office started deduction of G.P.F., etc. from her salary ; she started receiving threats of termination of her services as she denied to part with some money which was being realised as donations to be used for the purpose best known to respondents No. 2 and 3 ; she tried to seek relief against her apprehended termination by filing O. S. No. 1552 of 1985 in which the civil court granted interim injunction, on legal advice of her counsel, the suit was withdrawn as the same was not maintainable as the services of the petitioner stood terminated by the order impugned herein.

(2.) The main thrust of Sri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner could not be terminated Inasmuch as the Juniors to the petitioner are retained in service, Sri Gupta further submitted that the termination of the services of the petitioner is no longer required is arbitrary for the reasons the petitioner was appointed against a permanent vacancy through a selection process and her services were unblemished throughout. The similar controversy came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Om Prakash Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Shimla and Ors., AIR 1991 SC 1490. In that case, the petitioner who was on probation was served with charge sheet but before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, his services were terminated as no longer required though juniors to the petitioner were retained in service.

(3.) The Apex Court examined the controversy on two points ; first whether the services of the petitioner in that case were rightly terminated 'as no longer required' before conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and secondly, whether the order terminating the services 'as no longer required' though juniors retained in service, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? Considering the first question, the Supreme Court held as under: