The power of appointment and termination of services of class IV employees of the Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar department is vested in the District Programme Officer, and the Director cannot divest the District Programme Officer of this power.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner--Muneshwar Dayal has challenged the order dated 2. 1. 1996 passed by respondent No. 1--Zila Karyakram Adhikari, Bijnor on the basis of order dated 7. 12. 1995 passed by respondent No. 2--The Nideshak, Bal Vikas Seva Evam pustahar, U. P. . Lucknow and has prayed that the said order be quashed and the respondents be directed by means of a writ of mandamus not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner on the post of peon.

( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri M. C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel.

( 3 ) IT is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon in class IV cadre in the Office of Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Nazimabad, district Bijnor on 25. 9. 1993. He joined the post of peon on 1. 10. 1993. A Selection Committee was constituted under the rules for regularizatlon of the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was called for interview on 12. 10. 1994. The Selection Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as peon and ultimately by order dated 25. 10. 1994, the services of the petitioner were regularised. On 2. 1. 1996 the respondent No. 1--Zila Karyakram Adhikari. Bijnor terminated the services of the petitioner on the basis of a general order dated 7. 12. 1995 passed by the Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar. U. P. , Lucknow--respondent No. 2. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner being a regular employee of the department, his services could not be terminated abruptly without affording him an opportunity of hearing or initiating departmental enquiry against him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of termination of the services of the petitioner has been passed by way of punishment and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit, the respondents have taken the plea that power of appointment which was conferred on the Commissioner/district Magistrate by Government Order dated 25th august, 1990, was withdrawn by subsequent order passed by the Director on 7th December, 1995 on the basis of the Government Order dated 18. 2. 1991. In short, the case of the respondents is that the power which was earlier centralised in the Commissioner/district Magistrate stood withdrawn and it came to be centralised in the Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar, U. P. , lucknow, respondent No. 2 and since the petitioner was appointed in contravention of the order of the State Government dated 18. 2. 1991 by the District Authorities, the Director by the impugned order dated 10th August, 1995 cancelled all such appointments.

( 5 ) IT is indubitable fact that the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon initially on ad hoc basis on 25. 9. 1993. Prior to the appointment of the petitioner, Uttar Pradesh Bal Vikas Seva evam Pustahar Samooh Gha Karmachari Seva Niyamawali, 1991 which was framed under article 309 of the Constitution of India came into force with immediate effect on the notification of the rules on 3. 7. 1992. In Rule 3 (ka), the expression appointing authority has been defined to mean Deputy Director (Administration) in respect of the post in the Directorate and in respect of other posts the District Programme Officer was made the appointing authority. Rule 3 (ka,. therefore, means that in respect of class IV employees to be recruited and posted in the district, the District Programme Officer is the appointing authority. In respect of all those class IV employees who are posted in the Directorate, the Deputy Director (Administration) is the appointing authority. The petitioner along with two other class IV employees was appointed by the District Karyakram Adhlkari. Bijnor, respondent No. 1 who was obviously the appointing authority under the rules. Undoubtedly, the services o