VIJAY SHANKER PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has questioned the validity and the correctness of the impugned order dated 30.3.2005, annexure XIII to the writ petition, whereby the respondent No. 3 has passed an order for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as junior clerk on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to claim compassionate appointment as a dependant (adopted son) of Late Rajendra Pandey. Pursuant to the said order dated 30,3.2005, the Superintending Engineer has passed an order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on 31.3.2005, which order is also impugned and appended as annexure XII to the writ petition.

(2.) The grounds of challenge to the impugned orders are that it has been passed on the alleged recommendation of one Sri Kamla Prasad Yadav a member of the legislative Assembly, who has forwarded the compalint of Sri Ram Nain Yadav. The complaint found passage to the Chief Minister's office, whereupon the Chief Engineer was directed to take action and accordingly the order dated 30.3.2005 was passed, which stands established with the note appended at the top of the letter itself. It is further claimed that the order was passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the orders are in violation of the principles of natural justice. The ground for non suiting the petitioner is absolutely erroneous as the view taken by the respondents on merits is unsustainable, inasmuch as, the factum of adoption of the petitioner could not be successfully dislodged by the inference and conclusion drawn in the impugned order. The submission is that the impugned orders amount to a total surrender of jurisdiction on the basis of a complaint, which found passage to the Chief Minister's office and, therefore, the impugned orders being malafide are liable to be set aside.

(3.) The parties have exchanged their affidavits and with the consent of the parties, the matter is being finally disposed of.