IMPORTANT POINT
Termination of a probationer must not cast stigma without due process; otherwise, it is deemed illegal and arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the opp. parties/State and R.K. Upadhyaya, Advocate, for the opp. party No. 4, and perused the records.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved by his order of termination dated 30.11.2021 has approached this court seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the said order.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an advertisement was issued on 31.12.2017 for appointment on newly created 595 posts of Dental Surgeon under the Department of Medical Health and Child Welfare, U.P. The petitioner being eligible for the said selection applied in the said vacancy. He was successful in the recruitment process and vide order dated 04.10.2020 appointment letter was issued to him on permanent post against the substantial vacancy.

4. Prior to the said advertisement and selection, the petitioner had appeared for the MDS exam for post-graduate education in the Speciality of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry on 14.12.2018 and he was selected in the post-graduate course and had taken admission in the Government Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra. The result of the recruitment for the post of Dental Surgeon under the Medical Health and Child Welfare, U.P., were not declared till the petitioner was admitted and joined in 2019 for the post-graduate course and it is only in 2020 that the results were declared and he was selected on the post of Dental Surgeon under the Medical Health and Child Welfare, U.P. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner made an application to the Department of Medical and Health for grant of study-leave. The respondent did not consider application for grant of study-leave, consequently, he was constrained to file a Writ Petition No. 13652 of 2020, Santoshni Samal & anr. v. State of U.P. & 2 ors., which was disposed of by this court with a direction to the opp. parties to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner, by means of order dated 15.03.2021.

5. The respondents duly considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner was a Probationer and was not entitled for the study-leave. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 22.07.2021 filed another writ petition before this court being Writ Petition No. 22235 of 2021(SS) titled as Dr. Prabhanshu Srivastava v. State of U.P., on which notices were issued and it is pending consideration before this court.

6. It is during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition that on 20.12.2021 the petitioner went to join his services at the place of posting on 30.12.2021, but he was informed that his services had already been terminated by means of the impugned order dated 30.11.2021, however, a perusal of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner had already joined on 10.10.2020 and from the very next date he had proceeded on leave and it is for his unauthorized absence that his services have been terminated under the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order of termination dated 30.11.2021 has submitted that he was appointed on a substantial post according to the service rules by following the due procedure and accordingly submitted that he could not have been subjected to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 as he did not fall into the category of temporary governmant servant. He further submitted that the definition of 'temporary service' has been provided under Rule-2, according to which 'temporary service' means officiating or substantial service on a temporary post or officiating service on a permanent post under the Uttar Pradesh Government. He submitted that he was regularly appointed on a substantial vacancy and