RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M.P.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Sangeeta Chandra for the State. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has escaped the attention to the controversy involved in the writ petition, wherein no prayer for regularisation in service was made by the appellant, but the prayer was for quashing of the oral termination order. Smt. Sangeeta Chandra, learned State counsel also says that consideration for regularisation of the appellant in service by the learned Single Judge has been done though it was not the issue involved in the writ petition. We have also perused the contents of the writ petition and find that the appellant was aggrieved by the order of oral termination and there was no prayer for regularisation, and despite the fact no counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition, the same has been dismissed relying upon the law declared in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Since no prayer for regularisation in service was made by the appellant and the prayer made in the petition was for quashing of oral termination order, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The special appeal is accordingly allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge having jurisdiction to decide it on merit at the earliest after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.