HARI MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HON'ble Rajiv Sharma, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) PETITIONER alongwith other persons, on the basis of recommendation by the duly constituted selection committee, were offered appointment on the post of Assistant Boring Technicians by the Executive Engineer (Minor Irrigation Depart ment) Faizabad and in pursuance to the said appointment order, the petitioner started working at Gonda. By the order dated 26. 7. 1988, the opposite parties, in violation of the principles of natural justice, not only terminated the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons but also cancelled the entire se lection.

(3.) TO strengthen his argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Sfafe of Punjab and others, (2002) 9 SCC 492, wherein it has been observed as under "having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand as to how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside that part of the impugned order. "