IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 720 (SB) of 2001 Old Number Writ Petition No. 24921 of 1988 Brij Pal Singh. …..…Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others. ……Respondents. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for State of Uttarakhand. Mrs. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. Dated :- October 13, 2009 Corum : Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, ACJ. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mrs. Beena Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. The petitioner’s name was called from the Employment Exchange and, after going through a process of selection, the petitioner was appointed as Industrial Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs. 400 – 615 by the Additional Director of Industries, Garhwal Zone, by an order dated 24.12.1987 pursuant to which, the petitioner joined on a temporary basis on 08.01.1988 and petitioner continued to work on the said post. All of a sudden, the opposite party issued an order dated 07.12.1988 dispensing the services of the petitioner without assigning 2 any reason. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed the present writ petition which was admitted and, an interim order dated 21.12.1988 was passed staying the effect and operation of the impugned order. Based on the interim order, the petitioner is working in the same capacity for the last 20 years. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents indicating that the Additional Director Garhwal Zone was not authorized to issue an appointment letter and that the power to appoint an Industrial Supervisor was with the Additional Director of Industries, Headquarters at Kanpur, as was clarified by the order dated 13.10.1987 in which it was also indicated that any appointments made earlier by the Additional Director of Industries Garhwal Zone etc. would remain intact. This order came into effect on 13.10.1987 whereas the petitioner’s appointment was made on 24.12.1987. This Court after considering the matter is of the opinion that since the petitioner has worked continuously for the last 20 years without any complaint from the respondents, this Court feels that the petitioner should be permitted to continue in service. From a perusal of the order dated 13.10.1987, it is clear that till that date the Additional Directors of Industries of Regional Zones including the Garhwal Zone were competent to issue the appointment letters. It is not clear that the Additional Director of Industries, Garhwal Zone was aware of the order dated 13.10.1987 when the said Authority had issued the appointment letter on 24.12.1987. It is not a case that the authority was not competent to issue the appointment letter. The order dated 13.10.1987 only clarified that in 3 future the order of appointment would be issued by the Additional Director (Headquarters). In our opinion the order issued by the Additional Director, Garhwal Zone is a mere irregularity, the defect which would have been cured. This Court therefore, gives a benefit of doubt to the petitioner. Further, there is nothing in the counter affidavit to indicate that the process of appointment was against the Rules or Regulations framed by the respondent. It has come on record that the petitioner was appointed after going through the selection process upon his name being invited from the Employment Exchange. Since the petitioner has worked continuously for the last 20 years, this Court finds that the petitioner should be allowed to continue. In view of the aforesaid impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. Writ petition is allowed. (Alok Singh, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, ACJ.) Dated 13.10.2009 SKS