Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri N.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to implead the respondent-State of U.P. as respondent No. 5 in the array of parties. Since all the respondents are the authorities of the State of U.P. and the newly impleaded respondents is also represented by learned Standing Counsel who has already filed counter-affidavit, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties this Court proceed to here this matter finally under the Rules of the Court at this stage since pleadings are complete.

3. Against the order of termination passed by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur on 25.5.1996 and the appellate order dated 24.5.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi rejecting petitioner’s appeal on the ground of delay and laches, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid orders.

4. Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire proceedings are illegal and void ab initio being in utter violation of principles of natural justice and the sta