AJAY PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjec, J. The writ petition can, itself, be disposed of since the plea taken by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 being Regional Director, Social Forestry, Vrij Bhumi, Agra, who has disposed of the representation of the petitioner, on the basis of earlier order passed by this Court, was not the competent authority.

(2.) THE plea taken in the impugned order, dated February 3, 1995, in my view, cannot be justified, as in the present case, the petitioner has been working for the last 9 years "without any break", as a Class 111 employee in the Forest Department.

(3.) HAVING heard the rival submissions, I am of the view that the plea taken by respondents in the impugned order, by not allowing the petitioner to remain in service, cannot be justified in view of aforementioned decisions of Apex Court, as well as this Court, and in view of the fact that the petitioner has rendered service without any break for 9 years. The plea, that has been taken by the authorities regarding abolition of posts or merger of 9 posts is unsustainable.