JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Naveen Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned ACSC for respondent No.1 and Sri Pradeep Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.06.2002 passed by respondent No.2 contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition with further prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service in the establishment of respondents as Stenographer with all service benefits notwithstanding the impugned order dated 22.06.2002.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that a communication was made to the District Employment Exchange, Lucknow for making the names of eligible candidates on the post of Stenographer in the establishment of Directorate of Sainik Kalyan Evam Punerwas, U.P., Lucknow and the candidature was sought from district level offices i.e. Zila Sainik Kalyan Evam Punerwas Offices.

4. The selection was held and 12 candidates including the petitioner appeared and on the basis of written examination, short-hand, typing test and interview, the petitioner was recommended for appointment on the post of Stenographer by the selection committee on 23.12.1996. On the recommendation made by the selection committee, the Deputy Director submitted a note on 27.12.1996 before respondent No.2 clearly stating that the post was to be filled up through a candidate belonging to General Category.

5. An appointment letter was issued to the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, she joined as Stenographer on 01.01.1997 and was placed under probation. She successfully completed the probation period, which was never extended. After a period of more than 5 years of working, a notice was issued to her on three grounds:

a) the vacancy was determined and requisition was sent to District Employment Exchange and notice of the vacancy was also pasted on the notice board of the Directorate.

b) As per rules of reservation, this vacancy was to be filled up through scheduled caste reserved category and rules of reservation was not followed.

c) the prescribed eligibility for appointment to a clerical post i.e. experience of 5 years working in army service was not possessed by the petitioner.

6. The said show cause notice dated 18.05.2002 was replied by the petitioner on 17.06.2002 stating that it was to be ascertained at the official level before making petitioner's appointment. However, without considering the petitioner's reply, order of termination was passed on 22.06.2002.

7. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of termination vitiates on 3 grounds:

a) under the rules, there is no provision to issue advertisement inviting application from open market. For reference, Rule 5 of the applicable rules is being quoted below:

ifjf'k”V ^^[k^^
¼fu;e 5 ¼?k½¼2½ nsf[k,A
uSR;d Js.kh ds fyfidksa ds inksa ij fu;qfDRk ds fufeŸk p;u ds fy, NVuh fd, x, deZpkfj;ksa vkSj HkwriwoZ lSfud deZpkfj;ksa ds Jsf.k;ka %
1½ lsok;kstd foHkkx ds HkwriwoZ deZpkjh]
2½ izkjf{kd ¼fjtfoZLVl½ rFkk lsukfuo`Ÿk&oSrfud
3½ [kk| rFkk jln foHkkx ds HkwriwoZ deZpkjh]
4½ lgk;rk rFkk iquokZlu foHkkx ds HkwriwoZ deZpkjh]
5½ vU; ljdkjh foHkkxksa ds HkwriwoZ deZpkjh]
6½ foLFkkfir Lo.kZdkjA

b) in reference to Rule 5, Rule 15 was prescribed for procedure on direct recruitment, which is being quoted below:

ifjf'k"V ^^?k^^
¼fu;e 15¼1½ ds uhps dh fVIi.kh nsf[k,½
izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk es cSBus ds fy, vkosnu &i= izLrqr djus dh izfØ;k%
1½ lfpo fudVre lsok;kstu dk;kZy; dks fjfDr;ksa dh lwpuk nsxkA
2½ lsok;kstu dk;kZy; ds izkf/kdkjh ;g tkudkjh nsus ds fy, fd fdruh fjfDr;ka Hkjh tkuh gS] Lo;a lkekU; dk;Zokgh djsaxsA
3½ vH;FkhZ vius vkosnu&i= laEcaf/kr lsok;kstu dk;kZy; ds ek/;re ls lfpo dks izLrqr djsaxs] tks vkosnu&i= lsok;kstu dk;kZy; ds ek/;e ls izLrqr ugha fd, tk;sxs mu ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA
4½ lsok;kstu dk;kZy; vkosnu&i= fd ifjfujh{kk djsxk vkSj mi;qDr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vk