BHUPENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DILIP Gupta, J. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28th June, 1995 by which the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Maharajganj (hereinafter referred to as the 'chairman') has cancelled the temporary appointments of the petitioners made on 15th March, 1995 and terminated their services with immediate effect on payment of one month's salary.

(2.) THE issue involved in this petition is regarding certain appointments made in the year 1995 in the Zila Panchayat, Maharajganj (hereinafter referred to as the 'zila Panchayat' ). THE Selection Committee met on 11th March, 1995 for recommending the names of the candidates for the post of Second Grade Clerk, Cashier and Tax Inspector and on the basis of the names recommended by the Selection Committee, petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 were appointed as Second Grade Clerk while petitioner Nos. 8 to 11 were appointed as Tax Inspectors by the appointment order dated 15th March, 1995 that was issued by the Chairman. It was specifically mentioned in the appointment order that the appointments were purely temporary in nature and the candidates were also required to produce the certificates/documents mentioned in the appointment order along with their joining reports. On the basis of the aforesaid appointment order, the petitioners started working. Subsequently the impugned order dated 28th June, 1995 was issued by the Chairman mentioning that the procedure prescribed for making the selection had not been followed as neither wide publicity, as was required, was given to the advertisement and nor was the selection conducted by the Selection Committee in accordance with prescribed procedure. THE Financial Advisor, Zila Panchayat, Maharajganj and the Finance Officer, Zila Parishad, Lucknow also raised serious objections about the legality of the appointments. It is this order dated 28th June, 1995 that has been impugned in the present petition.

(3.) SRI B. D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel for the Zila Panchayat submitted that District Maharajganj had been carved out from District Gorakhpur by the notification issued in October, 1989 and even though there were surplus staff in the Zila Panchayat, yet it sought creation of posts and that too without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 as neither any approval of the Commissioner had been sought for creating the posts and nor such a proposal was moved by the Mukhya Karya Adhikari before the Karya Samiti or placed before the Board. He defended the order dated 28th June, 1995 and submitted that the procedure adopted for making the selections was contrary to the procedure provided for in Rules 21 and 22 since the vacancies had not been advertised in the manner provided for under the Rules and in fact there was no publicity at all and that in such cases, opportunity of hearing was not required to be given and that if the appointments were illegal, the question of any discrimination vis-a-vis, the employee of the Gorakhpur Zila Panchayat did not arise at all. He further submitted that extraordinary haste had been shown in making the selections by the then Chairman of the Zila Panchayat as the appointments could not have been made after 20th March, 1995 since the elections had been notified by the Election Commission on 20th March, 1995. He also submitted that the appointment of the petitioners had not been made on 15th March, 1995 but had been antedated as is apparent not only from the telex sent by the Hon'ble Minister to the Chairman to meet him in Lucknow on 18th April, 1995 at 11. 00 a. m. to discuss the appointments of the candidates but even the documents/certificates which were required to be submitted as per the appointment orders were submitted subsequently and even the attendance of the petitioners for the month of March and upto 21st April, 1995 was not marked in the regular attendance Register in which the names of 16 employees of the Zila Panchayat was mentioned but a fresh attendance register was prepared from 1st March, 1995 to 31st December, 1995 to show their names as in the old attendance register there was no place for addition of the names of the petitioners.