PRAMOD KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dated 29.9.1981 (Annexure 4) and seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the same.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Marketing Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies Department on purely temporary capacity on 5.4.1973, vide his appointment letter, Annexure 1. In the year 1981, he was posted at Kichcha. He had proceeded on leave with effect from 29.7.81 and was still on leave when his services were terminated in terms of his appointment by an order dated 30.7.81, as he was not found fit for regularisation. The petitioner approached the Commissioner. Food and Civil Supplies by way of representation, who, vide his order dated 11.9.1981, cancelled the termination order and the petitioner was posted at Chook Lab, Haldwani. Subsequent thereto, the earlier order of cancellation of termination was set aside by the Commissioner and Secretary. Food and Civil Supplies, Government of U. P. and he was ordered to be appointed on the post of clerk by the impugned order. The petitioner challenges this order on the ground that the petitioner could not have been reverted to the post of clerk, since he was never appointed as clerk and that the Marketing Inspectors Junior to the petitioner have been retained in service. He was not given any hearing or opportunity before passing the impugned order.

(3.) The case of the opposite parties is that the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis as Marketing Inspector and was liable to be terminated on one month's notice. The post of Marketing Inspector falls within the purview of U. P. Public Service Commission. The petitioner was never selected by the Commission. The case of the petitioner was considered under the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on Posts within the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 and the selection committee, after considering the character roll and service record of the petitioner, did not find him suitable and accordingly under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Regularisation Rules, 1979 temporary service of the petitioner in the department was terminated on 30.7.81. It is also claimed that after coming to know of the termination order, the petitioner absconded from duty and during absence from duty, he filed a representation on which the report of Regional Food Controller. Garhwal was obtained and the order of termination was recalled. But, however, when correct facts regarding termination of service on the basis of the report of the selection committee came to the knowledge of the competent authority, the earlier order of cancellation of termination order was revoked but in accordance with the prevailing policy of the Government, the petitioner was adjusted/appointed on the available post of clerk. It was denied if it was a case of reversion in any manner. The opposite parties also referred to the service record of the petitioner which contains adverse entries which were communicated to the petitioner and on the basis of the record, the petitioner was not found suitable by the selection committee. The mere fact that the order of termination was revoked by mistake is no ground to hold that the petitioner was reinstated because at the time of recalling of the order, only the report of Regional Food Controller was considered and when the true facts relating to the petitioner's record were known to the Government, the earlier order was revoked.