WASEEM KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Smt. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by Sri Nafees Ahmad, advocate on behalf of Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Rampur, respondent No.2. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has assailed an order of termination of service issued on 15.6.2007 indicating therein that the petitioner's services are being cancelled (Shri Waseem Ahmad Ki Sevaon Ko Etaddwara Nirast Kiya Jata Hai). It emerges from the record that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager on class IV post by the Expert Basic Education Officer, Rampur under a scheme, ie. "District Programme for Primary Education" (vide para 3 of the counter affidavit). Later on this very programme has been brought to an end and a new programme was started in the name of "Sarva Sshiksha Abhiyan" in the year 1995. The petitioner continued to work as a peon in the District Programme for Primary Education and in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan also. The experience certificates issued by the Expert Basic Education Officer, Rampur on 25.6.2004 and 2.12.2006 indicate that the petitioner Waseem Khan has been working since 1.7.2004 in District Programme for Primary Education and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. His work, conduct and performance was found to be satisfactory by the Expert District Basic Education Officer, Rampur. The petitioner has continued in service till the order of termination or cancellation of service passed on 15.6.07. In para 4 of the counter affidavit, the only reason indicated is that "because the programme now has been completed, so the department authorities have done no wrong any doing the termination of the services of the petitioner". Learned Standing Counsel has defended the impugned order on the basis of the above quoted sentence. The above quoted sentence is the only reason which has been spelt out in the counter to justify the order of " cancellation of service". I have gone through the pleadings of the parties. It is evident from the record that the petitioner was initially appointed by a formal appointment order on 22.6.2004 by the appointing authority, i.e., Expert Basic Education Officer, Rampur. It was indicated in the two experience certificates issued under the signature of Expert Basic Education Officer, Rampur that the petitioner has not only worked in District Programme for Primary Education as well as he has also worked in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Admittedly after the District Programme for Primary Education was wound up, the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was started since 1995. This itself shows that at the time of the appointment of the petitioner, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was in vogue and his service were also used in this Abhiyan/project also. In view of this fact it cannot be said that there were compelling exigencies, administrative, financial or otherwise to dispense with the services of a class IV employee. Somehow a defence has been manufactured in para 4 of the counter affidavit that the project has come to end. The counter affidavit does not reveal as to what was that project and under what scheme the same was going on. The Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner was also working in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (as per experience certificates issued by Expert Basic Education Officer). The order appears to be unjust, improper and malafide.