RAGHURAJ SINGH TYAGI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was ap pointed on 12th May, 1956 on a temporary post of Assistant Consolidation Officer. By the order dated 19th January, 1967 (Annexure 4 to the petition) pass ed by the Consolidation Commis sioner, Uttar Pradesh, petitioner's ser vices were terminated on payment of one month's salary. Petitioner represent ed against a sudden termination of his ser vices to the Board of Revenue but his re presentation was rejected by the order dated 10th November, 1967. Petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 19th January, 1967 in this writ petition inter alias on the ground that by putting in about eleven years' service he had acquired a quasi-permanent status and as the impugned order amounts to an order of punishment, it violates Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution because the peti tioner has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause against it. In the petition it has been alleged further that the opposite party No. 2, the Settle ment Officer (Consolidation), Gorakhpur, was ill-disposed towards the petitioner and had submitted confidential false re ports against him to the Deputy Director and had thus, manipulated to get the order of termination of his services. In the counter-affidavit filed by the oppo site party No. 2. it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed on a tempo rary post of Assistant Consolidation Offi cer, that throughout his service he had. Remained a temporary employee and that his services were terminated by giving him one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice. It has been averred fur ther that the petitioner's allegation that opposite party No. 2 was biased against him in any manner is incorrect and what ever report he had sent to his superior officers regarding the performance of the petitioner was in response to his duties and the Deputy Director during one of his visits to Gorakhpur had put some verbal questions regarding some cases decided by him but neither any charges were framed against the petitioner nor any punishment had been awarded to him.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the peti tioner has urged that the background, as narrated in the writ petition, in which the impugned order was passed, indicates that it is not an innocuous order but one which amounts to an order of punish ment and as such is hit by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Learned counsel has added further that as the opposite party No. 2. The Settlement Officer (Con solidation), was prejudiced against the petitioner, he has manipulated to obtain the impugned order dispensing with his services by submitting 'incorrect reports to the superior authorities of the depart ment. I, however, find no force in any one of these contentions.

(3.) IN paragraph 3 of the petition it is admitted that "the petitioner's ser vices were only to be terminated by one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof." Admittedly, therefore, the petitioner was a temporary hand and had continued as such during the course of his service. The contention of the learn ed counsel that by putting in eleven years' service, though in a temporary capacity, the petitioner has acquired a quasi-permanent. Status is wholly errone ous in law because the status of the peti tioner remained the same in spite of hi length of service.