RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGARPALIKA FEROZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. All these writ petitions are inter-connected as they involve common question of law and the facts are almost common. The impugned order is of cancellation of appointments dated 7-5-1994 by the respondents. The question involve is whether the President of the Nagar Palika or the Executive Officer as the case may be without observing principles of natural justice could terminate their services. Whether the president had power to appoint them. I would like to, in brief mention few facts of every writ petition but the counter-affidavit is more or less the same. Writ Petition No. 19434 of 1994 :

(2.) SHRI Rajendra Singh Yadav, the petitioner, prays for quashing of the order dated 7-5-1994 by which his services as a "chaukidar" were terminated. The petitioner joined initially by virtue of an order dated 25- 10-1989 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) and said order was issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Ferozabad. He was appointed against a regular vacancy of Chaukidar Roop Ram. Initially he was appointed on 17-7-1990 by acting Chairman vide Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. It is alleged in para No. 4 of the writ petition that the State Government took a decision for abolition of octroi in the year 1990 and order dated 24-8-1990 was issued informing the petitioner that certain employees of the octroi department have adjusted. Hence the service of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner represented the Labour Commissioner against the said order. He alleged that regular vacancy arose due to Ram Sanehi, Chaukidar and on his application he was appointed against a vacant post of Chaukidar by the Chairman on 17-9-1992 (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition ). AB the Executive Officer was not working at that relevant time the peti tioner, thereafter, joined on 18-9-1992 and started working. The petitioner was confirmed on 8-10-1993 by the Executive Officer vide Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. Later on the petitioner's grievance is that his appointment was cancelled as so-called enquiry conducted by the Additional District Magistrate in which no opportunity wad given to the petitioner. The petitioner has described cancellation of appointment as illegal, arbitrary and without observing the principle of natural justice. He has also pleaded that some employees, all mentioned in para No. 21 of the writ petition, Supatra Singh etc. have been retained, who were juniors to the petitioner and who were appointed in similar circumstances, whereas the petition er has been terminated. Writ Petition No. 19435 of 1994 :

(3.) THE petitioners in this writ petition also seek quashing of the impugned order on the same ground as other colleagues in other writ petitions. THEy were appointed on the post of Cleaners (Class IV) on the recommendation of the selection committee against two vacant posts which were approved by the State Government on probation of one year on 15-2-1993 vide Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. THEy were appointed on substantive post on a probation of one year and they jointed their duty on 15-2- 1993. Copy of appointment letter is filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. THEy alleged that they are confirmed employees after completing one year of probation. THEy also alleged that cancella tion of their appointment is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. THEy have also taken the point that their juniors have been retained but they have been deprived of the employment. Writ Petition No. 20540 of 1994 :