IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 5759(S/S) 2001 (Old no. 30528 of 1993) Ranjeet Singh S/o Mangsir Singh, Resident of village & P.O. Chaundali (Karanprayag), District Chamoli. …….Petitioner. Versus 1. District Inspector of Schools, Chamoli, 2. Principal Government Inter College, Kothgi, District Chamoli. ….Respondents. Sri N.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondents, Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri N.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 07.08.1993 passed by Principal Govt. Inter College, Kothgi, Chamoli. Stand of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Class- IV employee in the aforesaid Institution against the leave vacancy arrangement in the year 1986 and continued till 1990. In the year 1990, he was appointed against the substantive vacancy on regular basis, though temporarily. The respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 07.08.1993 has terminated the services of the petitioner and 2 that too without holding any inquiry and without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved with the order of termination, the petitioner preferred present petition before the Allahabad High Court and the Allahabad High Court on 30th August 1993 has stayed operation of the impugned order dated 07.08.1993 passed by the Principal of the Institution. It is further contended that the petitioner is still continuing on Class-IV post. It is disputed by the respondents that no any inquiry was conducted against the petitioner or even no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before termination of his services. It is also not disputed that vide order dated 03.08.1990, the petitioner was appointed against a substantive vacancy, though on temporary basis. In the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned termination order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned termination order dated 07.08.1993 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) March 22, 2007: NCM: