STATE OF U P Vs. POORAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-11-83 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal-I, Lucknow (hereinafter called as Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 515 of 1980, In re: Pooran Chand v. State of U. P. and others whereby the learned Tribunal had allowed the claim of the claimant and had declared that the claimant shall be deemed to have continued in service with all benefits including pay after having recorded a finding to the effect that the order of termination was void ab nitio as well as the order rejecting the representations contained in Annexures 5 and 8 to the claim petition as without jurisdiction.

(2.) THE State of U. P. in this writ petition has alleged that on 14-3-55 opposite party no. 1 Sri Pooran Chand was initially appointed as Assistant Consolidation Commissioner, U. P. THEreafter on 15-1-57 the opposite party no. 1 was given appointment to officiate as Consolidation Officer vide G. O. No. 10617 (l)-A-443/5o. On 15-1-65 the services of the opposite party no. 1 were terminated by means of an order simpliciter but on 8-9-1960 the opposite party no. 1 was appointed afresh to officiate as Consolidation Officer vide order passed by the Consolidation Commissioner.

(3.) IT was further submitted in the claim petition that the then Consolidation Commissioner Sri Kehar Singh, who terminated the services of opposite party no. 1 was not at all empowered to terminate the services of opposite party no. 1 as he was not the appointing authority. IT was further stated that there cannot be any appointment on post. All appointments are made on the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer. A direct appointment on the post of Consolidation Officer was actually an order of re-instatement of the opposite party no. 1