ASHISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.N. Rai, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Mr. Abhinav Narain Trivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3.10.2012 whereby regular appointment on a class-IV post vide letter dated 15.10.2011 has been cancelled on the ground that the facts given in the appointment letter have been found to be incorrect, the appointment has been given by fraud.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that impugned order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner has been passed without holding any enquiry and without providing opportunity to petitioner. Even if petitioner is treated as temporary employee he is entitled to get one month's notice prior to termination of service. Petitioner was given regular appointment vide order dated 15.10.2011, as such, service of the petitioner cannot be dispensed with without holding departmental enquiry.