SATYA DEO MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned termination order dated March 16, 1988 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). I have heard Sri. B.N. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed temporarily on August 1, 1970 on the post of Agriculture Teacher and joined his post on August 14.1970 in Higher Secondary School, Singli, District Pithoragarh. after having selected by the department. It is also stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that since then the petitioner has been continuously working on the said post with an unblemished record of service. He was thereafter transferred from place to place but was not regularised. It has also been stated in paragraph 6 of the petition that since juniors to the petitioners had been regularised, he made representations in 1985 and 1987 to the Additional Director (Basic) to confirm him, but no action was taken. True copies of; his representations arc Annexures-1 and 2. The petitioner's service was terminated by the order dated March 16.1988, true copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Perusal of Annexure-3 shows that the only reason given in the impugned order is that the petitioner's services are no longer required. Aggrieved, this writ petition was filed in this Court, and the impugned termination order was stayed.

(3.) Counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents. In paragraph 3 it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis temporarily and not on substantive vacancy. It is also stated in paragraph 4 that in 1973-74 and 1974 to 1980, his work was not satisfactory. In paragraph 7 it is stated that the, petitioner was not found fit for regularisation and he earned an adverse entry, and hence his service was terminated.