Harihar Prasad Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Director ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 4528 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5146 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Harihar Prasad Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Director Local Bodies U.P.Lko. & Ors.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Akhilesh Pandey
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that services of the petitioner have been dispensed with vide order dated 31.7.2012, Annexure-1, that has been impugned in this petition.  The appointment of the petitioner was not without rules insomuch as the petitioner was selected after following the selection process.  Selection process was initiated after issuing advertisement, Annexure-2.  It has also been contended that the impugned order has been passed without giving any show-cause notice to the petitioner.  Although the petitioner was on contract of service, however, the contract of service had been extended since 2003.

Learned counsel states that the post held by the petitioner is likely to be filled up by another person on same terms, which is not permissible in law.

Issue notice to respondent nos.2 and 3, returnable in four weeks.

Respondent no.1 shall be represented by State counsel.

Respondent no.3 is directed to file his counter affidavit as to under what circumstances the appointment of the petitioner has been termed as 'illegal' and as to under what circumstances show-cause notice was not given to the petitioner before passing impugned order.

In the meantime, it is directed that the post held by the petitioner shall not be filled by an incumbent on contract basis.

List on 01.11.2012.

Order Date :- 26.9.2012

A.Nigam