STATE OF U P Vs. HARISH CHANDRA DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Gupta, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 7. 10. 83 (An-nexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the U. P. Public Services, Tribunal, respondent No. 2, whereby the order dated 13. 10. 86 terminating the services of respondent No. 1 as confirmed by the appellate order dated 16. 4. 78, was set aside and the respondent No. 1 was ordered to be paid pay and al lowances as if his services were never ter minated. Respondent No. 1 was admittedly appointed as P. M. H. S. Officer on temporary basis by the order dated 2. 8. 72. The appoint ment order contained that the services of respondent No. 1 were liable to termination after giving one month's notice. He did not join his duty at Fatehgarh in pursuance of the order, dated 2. 8. 72. Consequently, the appointment order of respondent No. 1 was cancelled by the order dated 19. 9. 72. The order dated 19. 9. 72 was recalled and respondent No. Ijoined his duties at Amoli Primary Health Centre as Medical Officer on 18. 10. 72. According to the respondent No. 1, he was on leave duly supported by Medical Certificate from 14. 5. 74 to 20. 10. 74 and during his leave he was transferred to Allahabad, where he submitted his joining report on 21. 10. 74, but he was not allowed to join his duties and his services were ter minated by an order dated 13. 10. 76, whose copy has been annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The services of respondent No. 1 were terminated by an order simpliciter purporting to be made under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Ser vices) Rules, 1975, by giving one month's notice. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the said order, but the same was also dismissed by the order dated 16. 4. 78. The respondent No. 1 then filed a claim petition before respondent No. 2 for the quashing of the aforesaid order. By the impugned order dated 7. 10. 83 the termination order of the petitioner has been set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners before the respondent No. 2, in short was that on a general assessment of work and conduct, respondent No. 1 was found not suitable for the job and his services were terminated by a simple order without casting any stigma and consequently respondent No. 1 was not en titled to get any inquiry conducted.

(3.) THE main question which falls for consideration is whether the impugned order of termination, which purports to have been made under the terms of the employment and under the provisions of the aforesaid Rules of 1975 could be challenged on the ground of contravention of guaran tee of equal treatment embodied in Article 16 of the Constitution. THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since respondent No. 1 was appointed in a tem porary capacity, his services could be ter minated at any time after giving one month's notice, especially where the ser vices were terminated in accordance with the conditions of service and under the Statutory Rules. In my opinion this conten tion of the learned counsel must be repelled. Even where the services of a temporary ser vant are dispensed with by giving one month's notice as provided under the Rules, but simultaneously retaining persons junior to him, valid reasons must be shown by the authority making the termination order for such an action. In the case of Union of India v. Pandurang More, AIR 1962 SC 630, the Apex Court proceeded on the assumption that Article 16 of the Constitution might be violated by an arbitrary and discriminatory termination of service.