Judgment

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.:- Civil Appeal 3321 of 1990 and Civil Appeal 3320 of 1990 arise out of a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 21st July, 1989 passed in Writ Petition No. 3845 of 1987 (reported in 1990 Lab IC NOC 20): Indra Kumar Chopra v. State of U.P. and others and Writ Petition No. 4371 of 1987, Ashwan, Kumar Jha v. Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., and another.

2. As the common questions of facts and law arise in both the appeals, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. For facility of reference we may deal with the facts of the appeal of Indra Kumar Chopra.

3. The appellant, claiming himself to be a permanent employee-Manager Grade-Ill (Quality Control) posted at Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Agra, had challenged the orders dated 30th May, 1987 and 25th May, 1987, passed by the General Manager, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, Agra and Chairman Administrative Committee of the said Sangh. By the first order the appellant was relieved by the said Sangh in the afternoon of 30th May, 1985 and to report at Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Head Office, at the earliest and by the second order his services were terminated under Paras 17(1) and 19(A) of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter called the 1975 Regulations) by giving one months salary in lieu of notice period.

4. The orders were impugned mainly on the ground that the appellant was a permanent employee having been finally absorbed in service holding a regular post since 1981, in a clear vacancy after due selection, hence his services could not be terminated without following the due process of law. It was submitted before the High Court that the Regulations under which the services of the appellant were terminated would not applying the case of the appellant as the same apply to the employee on probation. On July 24,198 1, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Manager (Quality Control) in the Cattle Feed Plant, Varanasi and was placed on probation for a period of one year after his joining. It was pleaded that it was mentioned in the order that on the expiry of the probation he will be confirmed provided the period of probation is not extended by the Federation, at its discretion without assigning any reason thereof. It was alleged that he was appointed on one years probation which was not extended and was satisfactorily concluded.

5. On 29th August, 1984 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued a Notification promulgating the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Dairy Federation and Milk Union Centralised Service Rules, 1984 (hereinafter called the 1984 Rules). Rule 17(1) of the 1984 Rules provides as follows:-

"The employees of the Federation or Unions working on the managerial posts on the date of enforcement of these rules shall provisionally be deemed to be members of the service."

Rule 17(3) of the 1984 Rules reads thus:

"The Committee shall screen such provisionally absorbed employees..... in accordance with the qualifications and norms laid down by the Registrar. If, as a result of such screening, a provisionally absorbed employee is not found suitable for final absorption in the service by the Committee, his service in the Federation or Union concerned, as the case may be, shall be determined with effect from the date of communication of such decision of the Committee."

6. The appellant contended that as a result of the screening, the appellant was finally absorbed in the service.

7. Rule 19 of the 1984 Rules makes provision for the training of the members of the service. The appellant alleged that after absorption he was sent for training all Government expenses which he complete successfully. The appellant also contended that his work, conduct and performance was always appreciated by superiors, as a result of which he was sent as Manager Grade-III to Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Agra. While he was posted at Agra, he received the impugned orders.

8. To the w