ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 8-3-1991 and 9-3-1991 by which the services of the petitioners, who are class IV employees in the Employees State Insurance Hospital, Aligarh were dispensed with.

(3.) IT has been contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the appointing authority of the petitioners was Medical Superintendent while the termination order has been passed by the Senior Medical Superintendent and, therefore, the order is illegal. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Surendra Singh v. District Cane Officer, 1992 AWC 874. In Surendra Singh's case the petitioners were appointed following the procedure prescribed under the Service Rules by the District Assistant Registrar Cane Co-operative Societies and their services were terminated by the Secretary of the Society. The Secretary of the Society was admitted a junior person than the District Assistant Registrar and, therefore, set aside the termination order. In the present case, as is evident from the counter-affidavit, the Superintendent without resorting to the powers under the Recruitment Rules issued the appointment letter even though the posts were reserved for surplus employees for whom the said posts were created. The Senior Superintendent exercises the same power as the Superintendent and as such it cannot be said that he did not have the power to terminate the services. Further, the Superintendent having resorted to illegal means by issuing the appointment letter was rightly not trusted by the Senior Official. In any event no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners because in the first place the posts were reserved for surplus staff and the petitioners and absolutely no right or lien over it. Therefore, in my opinion, this contention of the petitioners does not merit acceptance and has to be rejected.