MOHD. ZUBAIR AHMAD Vs. TOWN AREA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of termination of the Petitioner's services. The Petitioner was employed as a 'Bakshi' in the Town Area Amethi by an order passed by the Chairman of the Committee on November 29, 1972. According to the counter -affidavit, the services of the Petitioner were terminated with effect from 8 -12 -1974. In the writ petition it was stated that the termination order had not been communicated to the Petitioner but that he learnt from a letter of the District Magistrate that his services had been terminated by the Chairman with effect from 8 -12 -1974. We accordingly proceed to determine if the termination order was invalid.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner he was appointed permanently and as such he could be removed only by following the procedure given in Sub -section (2) of Section 10 of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The procedure Under Section 10(2) had admittedly been not followed, The Petitioner has filed a copy of the order in which it is mentioned that he was appointed permanently. In the counter -affidavit it has been stated that the Petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis and that it appeared that the Petitioner had changed the word Asthai (temporary) into Sthai (permanent). The question is thus a disputed question of fact. We, accordingly, proceed to examine the provisions of the Act for determining whether the Petitioner could be deemed to be permanently appointed.

(3.) SECTION 10 is thus the provision which deals with the appointment 'of a bakshi' as a permanent employee. The Chairman has the power to make the appointment subject to the approval of the District Magistrate. In the present case, there was no assertion in the petition that the appointment had been made after the approval of the District Magistrate or even that the appointment was subsequently approved by the District Magistrate. An application for amendment was, however, filed and along with it a copy of a document was filed showing that the District Magistrate had passed an order directing the Petitioner to be put under probation for one year and for putting up the case about his approval after a year. The authenticity of this document also is denied by the Respondents. It has been asserted by the Chairman that such a letter was never received. In any case, we proceed to decide the present controversy on the assumption that such a letter was written by the District Magistrate. The words of the letter do not indicate the approval of the appointment of the Petitioner as a permanent Bakshi. Impliedly it means the not according of, atleast for the time being, the approval, because the question of approval was to be put up for consideration after a year. It cannot therefore be said that the District Magistrate had given approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as Bakshi on the permanent post. The Petitioner's appointment cannot, therefore, be deemed to be as of a permanent incumbent on the post.