SHASHI BALA SINHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of Sri R. S. Pandey, Sri K. S. Bajpai and Sri Kamaluddin Khan for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the opposite parties. As the common question of law and facts are Involved in the above noted writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that applications were invited for filling 13 posts of Instructor Stenographer (Hindi) In the Coaching-cum-Guldance Centres at various Employment Exchanges in U. P. through the letter dated 14.4.1983 Issued by Director of Employment and Training, U. P. The Employment Exchanges were required to forward the names by 30.4.1983. The petitioners were directed to appear in the interview on 22.6.1983 at 10 a.m. at the Directorate, Lucknow. On 22.6.1983, a written test was conducted and thereafter the petitioners were also required to appear for interview. The Director of Employment and Training, U. P., on 6.8.1983 issued letters of appointment to the petitioners and they were appointed as Anudeshak Ashulipiks in the pay-scale of Rs. 515-860 on temporary basis till 20.2.1984. They were also directed to join at their respective Coaching-cum-Guidance Centres latest by 20.8.1983. In compliance of the appointment letters, the petitioners joined in the respective Employment Exchanges. The appointments which were valid upto 20.2.1984 were extended till 28.2.1985 on the condition that the petitioners should attain the required speed as fixed by the State Government latest by 31.8.1984. In the said order dated 25.2.1984. it was also mentioned that if the required speed is not attained, the services of the petitioners shall be deemed to have been terminated after 31.8.1984. The petitioners were allowed to continue even after 28.2.1985. By letter dated 15.4.1985, which has been annexed along with the writ petition, the Director of Employment and Training, U. P. informed all the District Employment Officers that the petitioners shall continue in service in anticipation of approval from the State Government. By the letter dated 2.5.1986, the Director of Employment and Training, U. P., again directed the petitioners to appear in the test for the required speed to be held on 19.5.1986 in the Office of the Directorate. The test scheduled for 19.5.1986 was cancelled by the order dated 19.5.1986 and it was also mentioned in the said order that there shall be no test in future also. The petitioners were allowed to continue in service subsequent to 19.5.1986 and thereafter a tentative seniority list was published by the Director of Employment and Training, U. P. in which the petitioners' names figured from Serial Nos. 6 to 16. By the order dated 19.6.1987, the services of the petitioners were terminated. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned orders of termination dated 19.6.1987 filed writ petitions before this Court and the order of termination was stayed. The Writ Petitions Nos. 4382 (SS) of 1987. 4385 (SS) of 1987 and 4373 (SS) of 1987 were dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by the judgment and order dated 4.12.1987. The petitioners of Writ Petitions Nos. 4382 (SS) of 1987, 4385 (SS) of 1987 and 4373 (SS) of 1987 filed special leave petitions before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by the judgment and order dated 5.4.1989 allowed the special leave petitions and the matter was remanded back to this Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while allowing the special leave petitions also provided that it will be open to the petitioners to move fresh application for interim relief before this Court. The petitioners thereafter moved fresh applications for stay and this Court by the order dated 4.7.1989 granted the stay order to the effect that if the posts are still available, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue till the disposal of the writ petitions. In pursuance of the said order dated 4.7.1989, the petitioners were reinstated in service and since then they are continuously working on the post in question. Here it is relevant to mention that Writ Petition No. 4303 (SS) of 1987 and 4372 (SS) of 1987 were not linked with Writ Petition No. 4382 (SS) of 1987 and these two petitions were not dismissed by this Court on the ground of alternative remedy.

(3.) Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the appointment letters were Issued to the petitioners after the written test and interview and as the posts were available, the termination orders are arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that the persons Junior to the petitioners have been retained in service and they were subsequently regularised and as such, the impugned termination orders are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioners that before passing the Impugned termination orders, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners and as such, the impugned orders are violative of the principles of Natural Justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanshi Ram Verma v. Municipal Committee Mansa, (1981) 2 SCO 70 ; Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 277 ; Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2000 (3) AWC 1846 (SC): (2000) 5 SCC 152.