DESHRAJ SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected writ petitions. Counter affidavit has been filed in the Civil Misc. Writ No. 35360, of 1995. The controversy involved in these two writ petition is almost identical. Both these writ petitions are therefore being disposal of by this common judgment. Heard Sri P.S. Baghel learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) In the leave vacancy of one Bachhu Lal Rahi, a teacher in L.T. grade in Vinobha Inter College, Kamasin, district Banda for the period 1.11.1994 to 30.10.95, the petitioner-Deshraj Singh was appointed after adopting the procedure required under the law by invoking the provisions of Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. His appointment was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 23.1.1995. In pursuance of the order of appointment dated 10.2.1995, the petitioner joined on 11.2.1995. One Shiv Bhusan, made a complaint to the District Magistrate Banda on 8.3.1995 alleging that the appointment of the petitioner was made against the Govt. Order and the gazette notification pertaining to the reservation policy. The District Magistrate by this order dated 24.3.1995 found that the petitioner was appointed on a post on which a candidate belonging to the reservation category should have been appointed. He directed the Committee of Management to cancel the appointment of the petitioner or to face criminal charge. Under the threat of the order of the District Magistrate contained in order dated 24.3.1995, the Committee of Management cancelled the appointment of the petitioner by order dated 1.4.1995. The orders passed by the District Magistrate as well as the Committee of Management have been challenged in the present writ petition primarily on the ground that the policy of reservation and the provisions of U.P. Ordinance No. 5 of 1994, which later on was replaced by an Act were not attracted to a short term vacancy and that since the appointment of the petitioner was duly approved it could not have been cancelled without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The impugned orders have been termed to be in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) In the counter affidavit, the respondents have asserted that the appointment of the petitioner could not have been made in the teeth of the reservation policy and, therefore, the appointment being illegal, it was cancelled.