SHALLENDRA KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner was ap pointed on ad hoc basis as Class IV employee (Farrash) in the Civil Court, Deoria on 1. 9. 1976. By an order date 1. 9. 1987 (Annexure 1 to the petition) passed by the District Judge, Deoria, the petitioner's service was regularised alongwith five other employees, in which the petitioner's name figured at serial No. '5' while that of one Sri Sachi tanand at serial No. 6. It is further alleged that the said appointment was made against clear vacan cies. By an order dated 12. 4. 1989 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the District Judge, Deoria, the petitioner's service was terminated with immediate effect without assigning any reason. It is this order which has been challenged by means of present writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner having been senior to the said Sachitanand, his services cannot be terminated, retaining the said Sachitanand a junior person to the petitioner, on the principle of last come first go' and, as such, the order is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In support of this contention Sri A. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Om Prakash Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Develop ment Corporation, (1991)2 UPLBEC 967 (SC); and Shivbaran Singh v. Sub Divisional Officer, Bindki, (1992)1 UPLBEC 583 (SC ).

(3.) BY means of rejoinder-affidavit the petitioner has sought to contend that para 1099 of the Manual of Government orders, does not apply to the case of the petitioner. According to him with regard to the ter mination of service of a temporary employee 1975 Rules does not apply. The other Class IV employees whose services were dispensed with were not similarly situate w ta that of the petitioner.