STATE OF U P Vs. NAND KISHORE HARBOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.11.1980, whereby the claim petition filed by the contesting respondent No. 1, against the order of termination dated 23.5.1975 was allowed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal-IV, Lucknow (from hereinafter referred to as the tribunal).

(2.) THE brief facts, which are relevant for the purposes of resolving the controversy involved in the case are that in the year 1963 the respondent No. 1 was appointed as supervisor in the temporary capacity on an ex-cadre post. It was on 1.4.1971 that the said respondent was appointed as junior engineer on a probation of one year along with fifteen others. THE period of probation of the respondent No. 1 was not specifically extended, but he was permitted to continue till 23.5.1975 when his services were terminated by means of the said date, which is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. THE respondent No. 1 challenged the validity of the order of termination before the tribunal by means of Claim Petition No. 502/T/4/1979. THE tribunal allowed the claim petition of the respondent No. 1 by its impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.1980. THE operative portion of the said judgment and orders reads as under : "THE petition is allowed and it is held that the termination order dated 23.5.75 was invalid and the petitioner shall be deemed to have remained in continuous service. He shall be entitled to the salary and allowances. THE petitioner is awarded costs of this petition."

(3.) ON the other hand Sri Yatindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that in view of Rules 19, 20 and 23 of the said Rules and in view of the interpretation of the said rules given by this Court in the case of Peshawari Lal v. State of U. P., (1979) LU 240, the tribunal has rightly accepted the claim of the respondent No. 2 and rightly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1. He has also referred to and relied upon the other decisions in support of his submission that the respondent No. 1 shall be deemed to have been confirmed on the post of junior engineer on expiry of the period of probation, and his services could not be terminated arbitrarily by means of a non-speaking order. Said decisions are of Apex Court in the cases of State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 (ii) SC 1210, and State of Maharashtra v. Neerappa R. Saboji and another, AIR 1980 SC 42.