VIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 10.2.1988 issued by the District Cane Commissioner, Aligarh, services of the petitioner were dispensed with on the ground that his services were not required any more. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) In paragraph Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 12 of the counter-affidavit, it has been pointed out that the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of the fact that all those appointments which were made during the period from January, 1981 till June. 1983, were irregular appointment and, therefore, the same were directed to be terminated by the Additional Cane Commissioner through his letter dated 4.2.1988. The said exercise was undertaken as a result of the assurance given in the Assembly by the then Minister on the basis of question Nos. 99 and 100 raised therein. It is alleged that the petitioner was appointed by the District Cane Officer, Aligarh, whose services were also terminated by the appointing authority.

(3.) I have heard both Mr. D. K. Singh learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel at length.