Court No.4
Writ Petition No.1400 (S/S) of 1995
Mahesh Singh Vs. District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri & Anr.
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.
The petitioner was appointed as driver on temporary post
and was put on probation for two months by order of the then
District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 11th March, 1994. His
services were terminated with one month’s notice by order dated
20th April, 1995 passed by the succeeding District Judge,
Lakhimpur Kheri under the U.P. Temporary Government Servant
(Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.
There was no interim order passed in this case. It is stated
that an order was passed subsequently staying fresh appointments
on the post. A person was appointed but that his services were
also terminated.
The petitioner had filed supplementary affidavit
immediately after filing the writ petition annexing therewith an
order of the then District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri dated May 12th,
1994 by which the District Judge had, after completion of
probationary period of two months, regularised the petitioner on
the temporary post. In the same order the District Judge observed
that the petitioner’s services are temporary and can be terminated
at any time in accordance with the rules.
In the counter affidavit of Krishna Kumar Jaiswal, Sadar
Munsarim, District Judge Court, Lakhimpur Kheri it is stated in
para 4 that no selection committee was appointed for recruitment
of drivers nor any vacancy was advertised. Shri S.B. Singh, the
then District Judge appointed Shri Manoj Kumar on adhoc basis.
The services stood automatically terminated after 27.2.1994 and
that he was not reappointed. In his place Shri Mahesh Singh, the
petitioner was appointed vide order dated 11.3.1994. Once again
2
no committee was constituted nor any interview was held. On
administrative grounds the petitioner was appointed as staff car
driver. In para 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated as follows:-
“That the contents of para 3 of the writ petition are
denied. He was not properly maintaining the car. He was
not performing duties to the satisfaction of the District
Kheri, it is submitted that on various occasion when the
Hon’ble Judges of this court visited, Kheri the petitioner
was found negligent in reaching the District Judge’s
residence within time and he did not wear proper dress.
He was not keeping the car clean. The services of the
petitioner were not terminated on this ground.”
The petitioner was not appointed after any procedure
prescribed in the rules for appointment in the district court. No
advertisement was made nor any selection committee was
constituted in appointing the petitioner. The letter dated May 12th,
1994 by Shri S.B. Singh, the District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri
making services of the petitioner regular after completion of his
probation period, did not convert the petitioner’s appointment as
permanent. He continued to be a temporary employee serving on
temporary basis. The Rules of 1975 were applicable to his
services.
The contents of para 6 of the counter affidavit would show
that the petitioner’s services were not satisfactory. There was no
incident of misconduct nor any show cause notice was given to the
petitioner to infer that misconduct was the motive to terminate
services.
In the present case the petitioner was employed without
following any procedure for appointment for short period of two
months. His services were terminated as temporary government
servant by a non-stigmatic order.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Dt.02.02.2010
SP/