Man Singh Pal vs State of U.P. and Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner along with miscellaneous application. Miscellaneous application (IA 3647/2011) is allowed.

Rejoinder affidavit filed by the Petitioner is taken on record.

According to the Petitioner, the post of "Seasonal Collection Amin" being vacant in the Revenue Department in the State Uttarakhand, district Dehradun, he moved an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dehradun on 20.02.1991 praying that he may be appointed as "Seasonal Collection Amin". Consequently, vide order dated 22.02.1991 the Petitioner was appointed as "Seasonal Collection Amin" as one Shri Nathi Ram, who was Seasonal Collection Amin, was suspended during this period. Consequently, vide order dated 08.08.1991 one Sri Bishan Lal was promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar and the post of "Collection Amin" become vacant on which the Petitioner was appointed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dehradun on 08.08.1991.

The appointment on the post of "Collection Amin" was purely temporary in nature and was liable to be terminated without any notice. Consequently, thereafter the services of the Petitioner were terminated vide order dated 03.01.1992. Though the order dated 03.01.1992 speaks that earlier one Sri Nathi Ram, who was suspended from the post of "Seasonal Collection Amin", his suspension come to an end and since he was given joining, the services of the Petitioner were terminated.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that impugned order dated 03.01.1992 passed by Respondent No. 3. is in violation of principles of natural statute and fair play.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Petitioner was appointed not as "Seasonal Collection Amin" but as Collection Amin vide order dated 08.08.1991, it is totally in violation of law inasmuch as "Collection Amin" is appointed under the Collection Amin Rules, 1974 after a due process of law, which has not been adopted.

Be that as it may, the appointment of the Petitioner was temporary in nature and his services were liable to be terminated without any notice and the same having been done.

There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.01.1992, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.