BHUNESHWAR PRASAD KUREEL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava for the petitioner and Sri Shivam Yadav for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) This petition was entertained and the matter was heard on three previous days and ultimately the following questions were framed on 17th May, 2013 to enable the learned counsel to advance their submissions on the legal issues that have been raised vis a vis the challenge to the legality of the impugned order dated 26th April, 2013 resulting in the termination of the services of the petitioner.The order passed on 17th May, 2013 is quoted hereinunder:

(3.) The dispute centers around the appointment of the petitioner as a mechanic against a Class-IV post in the Respondent NOIDA authority. The petitioner was extended the benefit of appointment on the claim of reservation under the Scheduled Caste Category. The petitioner's appointment has been annulled by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of reservation as a scheduled caste inasmuch as he is a resident of another place out side the State of U.P. Consequently, applying the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Action Committee Vs. Union of India, 1994 5 SCC 244, on the issue of caste certificate the impugned order has been passed recording that the benefit of reservation extended to the petitioner was erroneous and, therefore, his appointment was invalid. Consequently, the services have been terminated invoking the powers under Clause 22(2) of the NOIDA Service Rules, 1981.