MOHD UMAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as constable in P.A.C. purely on temporary basis vide letter of appointment dated 17.9.1970 issued by Superintendent of Police. He was also given nine months' training before appointment. However, the services of the petitioner were discharged vide order dated 19.7.1973 by giving one month's notice as his services were no longer required. The petitioner alleges that his services were terminated at the time of P.A.C. revolt in which a large number of constables were removed from service and the petitioner was also discharged from service.

(3.) This fact is not borne out from the order of termination. No material has been placed by the petitioner in support of his case that he was discharged from service on consequence of P.A.C. revolt. The petitioner is not in service since 19.7.1973, i.e., for the last about 30 years. It is neither justifiable nor reasonable to issue any direction for reinstatement of the petitioner after such a long period particularly when his services were temporary in nature. The petitioner is more than 50 years of age at present.