INDRAJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THE petitioner has been appointed as a Nazarat Peon by the appointment letter dated 13th August, 1997, issued by the District Magistrate. In the appointment letter itself it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner is being appointed purely on temporary basis and the services could be terminated without giving any prior intimation. THE appointment of the petitioner has been terminated by the order dated 29th December, 1997 on the ground that several complaints have been received with regard to the appointment of the petitioner and on the receipt of the complaints, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has been directed to make an enquiry. THE Sub Divisional Magistrate, vide enquiry report, dated 21.11.1997, informed that the appointment of the petitioner has been made without giving any intimation relating to the vacancy to the Employment Exchange, as required under U.P. Group D Employees Services Rules, 1985, as amended from time to time.

(3.) IN the present case neither any Selection Committee has been constituted nor the petitioner has been interviewed. The procedure contemplated under Rule 19 has also not been followed. Only one application of the petitioner has been entertained on which the petitioner has been appointed.