IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.120 of 2008 (S/S) Sanjay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State Government of Uttarakhand & others. …..Respondents Mr. Nand Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.02.2008 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 2. Brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 01.12.2007 the petitioner was appointed as police constable in P.A.C. In the appointment order it was mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary and in case if any adverse fact is found in the character verification of the petitioner, his appointment will be cancelled. In his character verification nothing adverse was found and he was sent for training at Gorakhpur Training Center for 9 months. But on 05.02.2008 respondent no.3 issued Office Memorandum by which the services of the petitioner were terminated under the provision of Uttar Pradesh Temporary 2 Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. No reason was assigned in the termination order. The respondent no.3 filed counter affidavit in which it is mentioned that due to error of computer the petitioner was wrongly selected as he had obtained only 117.25 marks in the merit list whereas one Shri Arvind Kumar had obtained 119 marks. In fact Shri Arvind Kumar was entitled for selection. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide letter dated 05.02.2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not at fault and even if it is assumed that he was selected wrongly due to mistake of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be removed without affording opportunity of hearing to him. He further submitted that two constables namely Anil and Raghuvir Singh Bisht have left training due to their selection elsewhere and few posts are still vacant in the department. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner can be accommodated against the vacant posts. Shri Paresh Tripathi, Brief Holder, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the fact that petitioner obtained less marks than last selected candidate, the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue in the department. The mistake committed by the department was rectified and the services of the petitioner were terminated. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the respondents have rightly 3 rectified the mistake and have rightly offered appointment to Arvind Kumar as he secured higher marks than the petitioner. Since the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and was under training, there was no need for giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has also not denied the fact that he obtained less marks than Shri Arvind Kumar. It is also true that the petitioner was not at fault and appointment was offered by the respondents by treating the petitioner as successful candidate. By this action of the respondents the petitioner was unnecessarily harassed. Since there is no much marks difference between the last selected candidate and the petitioner, it is directed that the case of the petitioner for appointment shall be considered by the respondents against the vacant posts which fell vacant due to the reason that some trainees left the training. 5. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (V.K.Bist. J,) 30.07.2009 Arti