HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1174 of 2008 (S/S) Deepak Saklani S/o Sri K. P. Saklani … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Dated:- 18th May, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. C. S. Rawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhayay, the learned Brief Holder for the State. On 19th September, 2007, an advertisement was issued by the Commandant, 40th Battalion PAC, Haridwar respondent no.3 inviting applications for appointment on Class IV posts in IInd India Reserve Battalion and Armed Training Centre, Haridwar. A perusal of the advertisement indicates that 28 seats were required to be filled up for the posts of Cook, Waterman, Maali, etc. The advertisement further indicates that the posts advertised was substantive in nature in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner applied and was selected as a Cook. The petitioner joined his services on 12th November, 2007. Thereafter, on account of unauthorised leave and committing other misconduct, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and, the respondents, upon finding that the reply was not satisfactory, passed an order dated 25th October, 2008 dismissing his services by invoking the provision of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1975). The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. In my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained in as much as the respondents could not invoke the provision of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1975. These Rules are applicable to temporary service. Rule 2 of the Rules of 1975 is extracted hereunder:- 2 “2. Definition.- In these rules “temporary service” means officiating or substantive service on a temporary post, or officiating service on a permanent post under the Uttar Pradesh Government.” A perusal of the aforesaid rule indicates that termination of service under Rule 3 can be issued to terminate the service of a Government servant in temporary service, which means officiating or substantive service on a temporary post or officiating service on a permanent post under the Government. In the present case, from a perusal of advertisement, it is clear that the appointments were made on a substantive vacancy and not on a temporary post. Assuming without admitting that the Rules of 1975 could be invoked, the court finds that the respondents have not complied with the mandatory provision of Rule 3 namely, one month’s notice or wages in lieu of notice. In the present case, one month’s notice has not been given nor the wages in lieu of one month’s notice has been given to the petitioner. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been terminated w.e.f. the date of issuance of the order. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner would be reinstated in service. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for any back wages. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 18.05.2010 LSR 3