LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-529

SAMARJEET TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On April 09, 2009
SAMARJEET TIWARI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Sameer Kalia, Mr. Amit Bose, Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Mr. Rajeev Singh, Mr. I.P. Singh, Mr. Shishir Jain, Mr. R.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jai Deep Narayan Mathur, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

(2.) IN these bunch of writ petitions, common question of facts and law are involved and decided by present common judgment.

(3.) IT has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the case in hand, no fraud or concealment of fact has been attributed to the petitioners and accordingly, the termination of service is bad in law. Supplementing his arguments, learned counsels further submit that under U.P. Police Regulations, a constable shall be deemed to be on probation and service career of the probationer shall also be protected by Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations provides that before terminating the services of a probationer, it shall be incumbent upon the State Government to serve a notice and only after receipt of reply and on finding the reply unsatisfactory, the services may be terminated. Fresh appointments were done against regular vacancies in accordance with rules. The State Government was not justified to en-mass terminate the services of the petitioners by stroke of pen only by the change of government. This Court's attention has been invited to the judgment and order dated 14.1.2009, passed in writ petition No.7700 of 2007 where the constitution of committee headed by Shailaja Kant Mishra was impugned. The Division Bench of this Court has recorded a finding that the Director General of Police was not competent to constitute the Committee to make scrutiny with regard to appointments done in the year 2006. However, the Division Bench's judgment of this Court is subject matter of a special leave petition pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.