Back
1999 Supreme(All) 424
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BEFORE HONble D. K. SETH, J.
ARVIND KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD U.P. - Respondents
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION 12200 Of 1999
Decided On : 04/02/1999
A person cannot claim to be governed by the U. P. Agriculture Produce Market Committee (Centralised Service) Regulation 1984 and claim confirmation on the expiry of the probation period if the appointment was not made in accordance with the Regulations.
Headnote:
SERVICE TERMINATION - U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 - U. P. Agriculture Produce Market Committee (Centralised Service) Regulation 1984 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Petitioner's appointment as Typist on a consolidated pay was not made in accordance with the Regulations - Petitioner cannot claim to be governed by the Regulations and cannot claim confirmation on the expiry of the probation period - Petitioner's service was terminated by orders under the 1975 Rules and the Industrial Disputes Act - Petitioner's challenge to the termination orders is dismissed as he has not been able to establish any legal right to the post.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was appointed as a Typist on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1200/- p.m. without following the procedure laid down in the U. P. Agriculture Produce Market Committee (Centralised Service) Regulation 1984. Petitioner's service was terminated by orders under the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Petitioner challenged the termination orders, claiming that he was governed by the Regulations and that his service could not be terminated without following the procedure laid down therein.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner's appointment was not made in accordance with the Regulations and therefore he could not claim to be governed by the Regulations. The Court also held that the petitioner had not been able to establish any legal right to the post and therefore his challenge to the termination orders failed.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's appointment was made in accordance with the U. P. Agriculture Produce Market Committee (Centralised Service) Regulation 1984? 2. Whether the petitioner was governed by the Regulations and could claim confirmation on the expiry of the probation period? 3. Whether the petitioner's service could be terminated under the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's appointment was not made in accordance with the Regulations because he was not recruited through the procedure laid down in the Regulations. 2. The Court held that the petitioner could not claim to be governed by the Regulations and could not claim confirmation on the expiry of the probation period because he had not been appointed following the Regulations. 3. The Court held that the petitioner's service could be terminated under the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because he had not been able to establish any legal right to the post.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the termination orders.
( 2 ) MR. Gautam submits that since the petitioner has been appointed against a substantive vacancy on regular basis, his service could not be terminated under the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service ) Rules, 1975 as has been sought to be done in terms of the order of termination contained in Annexure 1 since the said Rules don not apply in the case of the petitioner, who is not a Government servant. He then contends that the petitioner is governed by the U. P. Agriculture Produce Market Committee (Centralised Service) Regulation 1984 and is not a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and as such, his service could not be retrenched in terms of Section 6 - H of the Industrial Disputes act as has been sought to be done by virtue of Annexure II to the writ petition. He then contends that in fact the termination is a penalty in disguise, which can only be done in accordance with the regulations, which provided for holding of an inquiry and giving of an opportunity. In case the order of termination is a cancellation of the appointment even then the principles of natural justice and equity requires giving of an opportunity to the petitioner. He then contends that since the petitioner was governed by the 1984 Regulations, his service could have been terminated on under the provisions of the said Regulations and his service could not have been dispensed with otherwise. He had also contended that a person cannot be a government servant and a workman under the Industrial Disputes act simultaneously. Therefore, there is an inherent contradiction in the two orders. Inasmuch by the first order the petitioners has been treated to be a government servant while applying 1975 Rules and at the same time by the second order, he is treate
