JAWED AHMADS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23 -4 -1986, whereby order of appointment of the petitioners dated 19 -11 -1984 was cancelled by respondent No. 2. Prayer for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to work and to pay their salary and allowances, has also been made.

(2.) IT has been stated that on 29 -10 -1984, several posts of Junior Clerks and cashiers were sanctioned by the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services. For District Bahraich six posts of junior clerks and one of cashier were sanctioned. Said posts were advertised on 16 -11 -84. A selection committee, in accordance with the rules, was also constituted under the Chairmanship of respondent No. 2, Executive Engineer. A letter is also stated to have been sent to the Employment Exchange asking to send the names of the candidates for selection and appointment on the said posts. Petitioners besides several others also applied for their appointment. Petitioners and other candidates were called for interview on 17 -11 -1984. On the basis of the said interview, select list was prepared. On the basis of the said select list, appointments were made and appointment letters were issued to the petitioners on 19 -11 -1984. Petitioners on the strength of the said appointment letters joined services on the same date, and since then they have been working and discharging their duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. Suddenly, the impugned order dated 23 -4 -86 was passed, whereby appointments of the petitioners were cancelled and their services were terminated. Petitioners, thereafter, approached this Court and filed the present petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently urged that the petitioners were appointed on the posts in question, in accordance with law and after following the procedure prescribed for the same. It has been urged that the posts in question, were advertised in the news papers and the selection committee was constituted, in accordance with the relevant rules and that the impugned order dated 23 -4 -1986 was passed by respondent No. 2 wholly arbitrarily without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in any form. Therefore, said order was non -est and was liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, learned Counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Shrawan Kumar tha and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 330, as well as the decision of the Court in, Govind Saran Dwivedi and others v. Union of India and Ors., 1984 (2) LCD 243.