HARI KISHORE SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The facts in the case are not disputed. Petitioner's services were terminated by means of the impugned orders dated 12th November, 1994 and 16th November, 1994 on the ground that his height has not been in accordance with the standard for appointment on the post of 'Bandi Rakshak'. It is mentioned in the counter affidavit that only deficiency on defected by the respondents is that petitioner was found 1 cm. short of the standard minimum height prescribed for the said post. In the instant case petitioner was appointed in the year 1983 after due verification and having observed all formalities successfully. He has served for about eleven years. There is no averment or allegation in the counter affidavit or as well as anywhere that the petitioner was guilty of perpetuating or misrepresenting or was instrumental in concealment of his height. Actually, it was mistake on the part of the respondents. It is absolutely clear that the petitioner should not be penalised for ten years. While the writ petition was admitted, learned single Judge granted ad interim order dated 12th December, 1994 and in consequence, this Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 12th November, 1994 and consequently, it is not disputed at the Bar that the petitioner is still continuing in service. Taking into account the entirety of circumstances and also the conduct of the respondent, I do not find any good good for sustaining the impugned orders dated 12th November, 1994 and 16th November, 1994 and the same cannot be allowed to continue particularly when the possibility of error in calculation of measurement and the discrepancy in two scales used at two different points of time after eleven years cannot be ruled out. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12th November, 1994 and 16th November, 1994 are set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, revision of pay scale, passing of efficiency bar and other allowances and promotions etc. for which he is entitled deeming that there was no termination order in existence.