DR.AKSHAIBAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B. K. Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.1 to 4. Although Sri J. B. Gupta, the Director, Technical Education has been arrayed as opposite party no.5 in the writ petition owing to the allegations of mala fide alleged against him, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

(2.) The present petition has been filed against the order dated 15.06.2001 whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service. As per the averments of the writ petition, the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Principal in the Government Polytechnic College, Kanpur when his matter was referred to the Screening Committee for the purposes of recommendation regarding compulsory retirement. It has been stated in the writ petition that with respect to the years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, adverse entries were recorded against the petitioner only at the instance of the opposite party no.5 who had a personal prejudice against the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid averments, allegations of mala fide have been alleged against the said opposite party but which do not require to be considered. The primary ground of challenge to the order is that the adverse entries with regard to the petitioner most of which were considered by the Screening Committee, had already been nullified by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal and therefore could not have been looked into by the Screening Committee for the purposes of the service record of the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same has not been passed in public interest and without recording any subjective satisfaction regarding the desirability or otherwise of continuing the petitioner in service. It has also been submitted that the order impugned has been passed without any application of mind and does not record any reasons for its passing. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a perusal of the Screening Committee will indicate that a total of 23 persons were to be screened but the proceedings with regard to 22 persons were deferred on account of pendency of either applications pending before the U.P. Public State Services Tribunal or due to representations pending before the officials concerned against the adverse entries. He has submitted that it is only the case of the petitioner which was taken up for consideration by the Screening Committee which clearly amounts to hostile discrimination against the petitioner.