Karnataka High Court
Sri. Santhosh Kumar. R vs Union Of India on 30 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB
WP No. 25540 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO.25540 OF 2022 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR. R
S/O V RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
GDS MD (SPEED),
PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES SO
BENGALURU - 560 058.
R/AT NO.122, 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
NEAR 'D' BUS STAND, KAMALANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYANNA G R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by K G
RENUKAMBA AND:
Location:
High Court of 1. UNION OF INDIA
Karnataka DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
REP. ITS SECRETARY,
DAK BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL
BENGALURU REGION,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
BENGALURU WEST DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB
WP No. 25540 of 2022
4. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
OF POST OFFICES
BENGALURU WEST SUB-DIVISION-1,
JALAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 013.
5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (UNIVERSITY)
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
6. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY,
MUKTHAGANGOTRI,
MYSURU - 570 006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H, CGSC FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. ABHISHEK K, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.12.2022 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU BENCH IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION
NO.170/01819/2018 IS AT ANNEXURE-A. CONSEQUENTIALLY
SET-ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE OF TERMINATION
OF SERVICE ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT BY MEMO
DATED 15.09.2017 AND SUBSEQUENT CORRIGENDUM DATED
27.09.2017 IS AT ANNEXURE-A7, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB
WP No. 25540 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 01.12.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (The Tribunal for short) in OA No.170/01819/2018 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner herein by stating in paragraphs number 17 and 18 as under:-
"17. Be that it may be, from the pleadings available on record, and after hearing the learned counsels, it is evident that the reasons for issuance of the termination notice dated 15.09.2017 by the respondents, is the fact that the applicant had claimed the appointment on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the Bridge Course of the year 2013-14 conducted by the Karnataka State Open University which is not recognized. He deliberately did not claim his appointment on the basis of marks obtained by him in the 2004 SSLC examination conducted by the Karnataka State Board of Education, which were much lower than the marks obtained by him in the bridge course, -4- NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 and which may have resulted in his non selection due to lower merit.
18. This course is not recognised either by the State Government or by the Distant Education Council for the year 2013-14. Since the appointment of the employee is based upon marks obtained by him in an unrecognized course, hence, there is a valid reason for issuance of notice of termination to the applicant under Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011."
2. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal with the following prayers:-
"The applicant respectfully prays for the following reliefs:
8[i]. That this hon'ble tribunal be pleased to call for the concerned records from the respondents, peruse them and set aside the Memo No. NIL dated 15-9- 2017, at annexure A-7, issued by the Asst. Supdt. of Post Offices, Bg. West Sub Division-, BG-13, by which the applicant's services is proposed to be terminated without assigning any reasons, in the interest of justice and equity.-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 8[ii] To pass such orders as this hon'ble deems fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of this application."
3. The facts to be noted for the purpose of this order are, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Bengaluru West Division had issued Notification calling for applications to fill up posts of GDS-MD (Speed Post) at Peenya small industries Post Office, Bengaluru in November 2014. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner had applied for the said post vide application dated 15.11.2014. It was the conceded case of the petitioner that he was selected and appointed to the post vide Memos dated 25.11.2014 and 02.12.2014. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner has undergone training and joined the post on 06.12.2014. The petitioner had passed SSLC from a School in Bengaluru conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board in the year 2004 in 2nd class securing 318 marks. Since he secured less marks in SSLC, he had appeared for the 10th standard bridge-course examination conducted by the Karnataka -6- NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 State Open University, Mysuru ('KSOU' for short) in the Academic Year 2013-14. He passed the said examination with first class securing 457 marks.
4. Respondent No.4 i.e., Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices issued a Memo dated 15.09.2017 to the petitioner expressing itself that why his services be not terminated with effect from the date of expiry of period of one month from the date on which the notice was served on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said Memo, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted stay of the operation of the proposed termination of the petitioner from services on 27.09.2017. The stay continued till the final disposal of the OA on 24.10.2018. It appears that the petitioner withdrew the said OA with liberty to file a fresh OA for regularization of his services as he had put in more than 3 years of continuous service.
5. It is noted that the primary reason for proposed termination was that the 10th standard examination passed by the petitioner from KSOU is not recognized by -7- NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 Government of Karnataka. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the recognition had been accorded to all Open Universities by Distance Education Council for a period of 5 years and the period of 5 years which ended on 2013-14. The petitioner having passed the 10th standard examination conducted by the KSOU during 2013-14, the same being within 5 years, the petitioner is having the necessary qualification for being appointed.
6. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the Chief Post Master General issued a clarification dated 09.03.2016. Based on the clarification issued by KSOU vide letter dated 24.02.2016 wherein it is clarified that students who have completed the bridge-course are eligible to take admissions in further courses in KSOU and some other Universities. It is to be noted that bridge-courses are not recognized by the State Government of Karnataka. The same have been completely stopped from 2014. The Tribunal also noted -8- NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 the fact that the University Grants Commission ('UGC' for short) had vide public notice dated 16.06.2014 mentioned that the programmes offered by KSOU, Mysuru have not been recognized by the UGC beyond 2012-13. Accordingly, the Chief Post Master General who had issued letter dated 09.03.2016, conveyed to the all sub-appointing authorities to take necessary action and review all such cases where engagements have been made based on the marks obtained in the bridge-course. It is pursuant thereto, a show-cause notice was issued which became the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. We find that the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner by stating in paragraphs No.8 to 20 as under:
"8. In the present case, the applicant is seeking quashing of the memo dated 15.09.2017 issued by the Respondent No. 4 by which the applicant's services are proposed to be terminated without assigning any reasons. However, as per the subsequent pleadings made by the parties, it is apparent that the reasons for issuance for this notice was the fact that the applicant had been -9- NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 selected as GDS MD (Speed) at PSI PO in December, 2014 based upon the marks obtained by him in the 10th standard Bridge Course, Examination conducted by the Karnataka State Open University, Mysore in the academic year 2013-
14. The applicant had secured 457 marks in this examination as against 318 marks secured by him in the Karnataka Secondary Education Board Examination conducted in the year 2004.
9. The respondents have pleaded that this Bridge Course was not a recognised course by the State Government of Karnataka for the academic year 2013- 14. The said course had been approved by the Distance Education Council for a period of five years w.e.f., 08.04.2008 till 08.04.2013 only i.e., till the academic year 2012-13. The applicant, however, had passed the examination in the academic year 2013-14. The Bridge Course passed in 2013-14 is not recognised either by the State Government or by the Distance Education Council. Hence, the applicant was not entitled to claim his selection on the basis of marks obtained by him in this un-recognised examination.
10. The applicant was eligible to be considered only on the basis of marks obtained by him in the Karnataka Secondary Education Board (KSEB) Examination in the year 2004 where he had passed the said examination and secured 318 marks.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022
11. Respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that the applicant submitted the marks obtained by him in the unrecognized bridge course conducted by KSOU for the purpose of engagement as GDS MD, instead of the marks obtained by him in the SSLC examination conducted by KSEB. The marks obtained by the applicant in KSEB were substantially lower (318 marks) than the marks obtained by him in the bridge course (457 marks), as admitted by the applicant himself in his pleadings. This act of the applicant, therefore, according to the respondent, deprived five other meritorious candidates from selection to the said post.
12. The contention of the applicant that he was appointed as GDS MD w.e.f., 2014 and has now rendered a service of more than three years cannot be countenanced. The applicant had been served a termination notice vide memo dated 15.09.2017. He had been appointed on 6.12.2014 and consequently had not completed three years of services, before issuance of his termination notice. His subsequent engagement was on the basis of a stay order granted by this Tribunal in OA No. 505/2017. This OA has been subsequently dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh OA vide orders dated 24.10.2018.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022
13. In OA No. 505/2017 filed by the applicant, this Tribunal, vide orders dated 24.10.2018, had observed as under:-
"1. After having heard the matter, the learned counsel for the applicant decides to withdraw the OA for the reason that the Bridge Course on which he relies on to base his qualification has been found in all other cases to be not relevant on the basis of the orders issued by the Government of Karnataka refusing to grant equivalence to the Bridge Course. He had actually passed the SSLC earlier and what he had done is that he had appeared for the Bridge Course once again and bettered his prospectus. Since we had granted opportunity following the DOPT circular granting time in compassionate appointment to acquire the qualification, we will now permit him to have liberty to file a fresh OA on the new pleadings as aforesaid.
2. This OA is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs."
14. Consequently, the applicant filed the present OA based on the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA No: 505/2017.
15. It is noticed that the notice for termination of service of the applicant dated 15.09.2017 had been issued by Respondent No. 4 without assigning any specific reason for issuance of the notice. However, a perusal of the Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, provides as follows:-
"8.Termination of Engagement (1) The engagement of a Sevak who has not already rendered more than three years' continuous service from the date of his engagement shall be liable to be terminated at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Sevak to the Recruiting Authority or by the Recruiting Authority to Sevak;
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 (2) The period of such notice shall be one month:
Provided that the service of any such Sevak may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Sevak shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of Basic Time Related Continuity Allowance plus Dearness Allowance as admissible for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month."
16. The respondents have also pointed out that there are specific directions issued by the D.G., P. & T., vide Endorsement No. 10/1/82-Vig.III, dated the 19th July, 1992 that no reasons should be indicated in the termination orders issued under Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011.
17. Be that it may be, from the pleadings available on record, and after hearing the learned counsels, it is evident that the reasons for issuance of the termination notice dated 15.09.2017 by the respondents, is the fact that the applicant had claimed the appointment on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the Bridge Course of the year 2013-14 conducted by the Karnataka State Open University which is not recognized. He deliberately did not claim his appointment on the basis of marks obtained by him in the 2004 SSLC examination conducted by the Karnataka State Board of Education, which were much lower than the marks obtained by him in the bridge course, and which
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 may have resulted in his non selection due to lower merit.
18. This course is not recognised either by the State Government or by the Distant Education Council for the year 2013-14. Since the appointment of the employee is based upon marks obtained by him in an unrecognized course, hence, there is a valid reason for issuance of notice of termination to the applicant under Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011.
19. Keeping the above points in view, there is no merit in the OA and it deserves to be dismissed.
20. Consequently, OA stands dismissed. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs."
7. From the above it is noted, the primary reason for the Tribunal to dismiss the petition is that the petitioner having completed the bridge-course in the year 2013-14 when the bridge-course was not recognized, he could not have claimed an appointment on the basis of the said bridge-course. During the hearing on 01.08.2024, Sri. Jayanna.G.R, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a notification dated 05.03.2018 issued by the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 Government of Karnataka which interalia states that the bridge-course is recognized for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. By relying upon the said notification, his contention was that the petitioner having completed the bridge course in 2013-14, the petitioner is eligible for being appointed. In other words, the appointment being valid, he could not have been terminated by the respondents. On 01.08.2024, we granted time to the learned counsel for the respondents, to seek instructions.
8. Sri. Jayakara Shetty, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 would draw our attention to the objections filed by the respondents to this petition, more specifically by relying on the public notice dated 16.06.2015 issued by the UGC to contend that the UGC, the apex body stipulating the standards of education has clearly stated that programmes offered by the KSOU have not been recognized by UGC beyond 2012-13. In other words, the petitioner having undertaken the bridge-course through open schooling from KSOU is not recognized in
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 the year 2013-14 and hence, could not have been appointed to the post under the Postal Department, Government of India and as such, the notice terminating the services of the respondent is justified. He also states, the Tribunal is also justified in rejecting the OA.
9. On this submission of Sri. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Dadapeer -Vs.- Chief Post Master General and Others [WP No.51749/2019, decided on 01.03.2021] wherein on identical facts, the Co-ordinate Bench has granted relief and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. He concedes the Court had also said that the said judgment shall not form a precedent as it has been passed in the facts of that case. We have gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant facts, as noted by the Co-ordinate Bench are, in paragraphs No.2 to 12 which we reproduce as under:
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 "2. The undisputed facts of the case are that on 15.06.2015, the respondents herein issued a notification for filling up of the post of Gramin Dak Sevaks (hereinafter referred to as 'GDS' for short) to the Hirekasavi Brach Office.
3. The petitioner herein submitted his application in response to the said notification. The petitioner was provisionally selected to the said post and he was informed about this vide letter dated 20.10.2015 and he was called upon to submit all the original documents for verification.
4. On verification of the original records, the petitioner has handed over the charge of the post of GDS with effect from 10.12.2015.
5. About two years, thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 30.01.2017 calling upon him to show cause as to why his candidature to the post of GDS should not be cancelled. It was stated therein that the petitioner had produced the statement of marks card issued by the Karnataka State Open University (hereinafter referred to as KSOU' for short) for the bridge course (equivalent to SSLC) of term end examination which had been held in the month of March, 2014. It was stated that the Dean (Academic), KSOU Mysuru had issued a clarification to the respondents that the bridge course was not recognized by the Government of Karnataka and the same was also confirmed by the Competent
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 Authority and he was hence required to show cause as to why the candidature to the post of GDS should not be cancelled.
6. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the CAT' for short) challenging the show cause notice.
7. The CAT by the impugned order has rejected the claim of the petitioner and dismissed the application. The CAT in the impugned order has stated that since the bridge course conducted by the KSOU was not recognized by the Government of Karnataka, the persons seeking employment could not claim that bridge course offered by the KSOU was equivalent to SSLC.
8. The CAT, in other words, stated that the courses conducted by the KSOU were not equivalent to SSLC and therefore, the respondents herein were right in proposing to cancel the appointment of the petitioner.
9. It is pertinent to state here that the petitioner, as a matter of fact, had passed the SSLC examination conducted in the 2019. The CAT, however, came to the conclusion that this would not enable the petitioner to retain his appointment.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents could not have proposed to cancel
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 the appointment, nearly two years after the petitioner was appointed. He submitted that the petitioner was not guilty of any misrepresentation. The KSOU, which was the university run by the State, had itself issued a certificate stating that the bridge course offered by it was equivalent to SSLC and it was thereafter not open for it to issue a subsequent clarification that it was not equivalent to SSLC which had resulted in the proposed cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner.
11. He submitted that since the KSOU did not dispute the fact that it had conducted a bridge course and it had also stated that the bridge course offered by it was sufficient enough to make students eligible to take admission in KSOU, that by itself, would lead to the inference that the said bridge course conducted by the KSOU was in fact equivalent to SSLC.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that in the notification it had been categorically stated that only the students who possessed SSLC certificate could apply and since, admittedly, the petitioner did not possess SSLC certificate, he could not obviously lay a claim over the post. He submitted that no fault could be found with the order of the CAT to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
10. The Co-ordinate Bench has, in paragraphs No.14 to 23, stated as under:
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 "14. It is not in dispute that the respondents did issue a notification calling for filing up the vacancies of the GDS post. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did produce his statement of marks issued by KSOU relating to the bridge course which stated it was equivalent to SSLC.
15. It is also not in dispute that the respondents have processed the application of the petitioner on the basis of the statement of marks and also provisionally selected the petitioner. The respondents, as a matter of fact, permitted the petitioner to work from 2015 till 2017 without raising any queries regarding this eligibility. In other words for a period of two years, the petitioner was permitted to discharge his duties as a GDS on the assumption that he possessed the necessary eligibility of SSLC.
16. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner after issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner has taken up the SSLC examination and has also passed the said exam and obtained a certificate in that regard.
In other words, after the issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner has secured the requisite educational qualification, which, he otherwise thought he had already possessed as on the date of his application, by virtue of the marks card issued by the KSOU.
17. In our view having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances of this particular case, the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 respondents ought not to have proposed to terminate the appointment of the petitioner.
18. We say so because, the respondents processed the application of the petitioner and allowed him to work for two years on the basis that the petitioner possessed an equivalent education qualification. It is only after a period of two years that the respondents chose to obtain a clarification and after obtaining the clarification, they proceeded to initiate action against the petitioner.
19. We are of the view that since the petitioner immediately on being served with show case notice has proceeded to secure the SSLC qualification that would entitle him to continue in the post. It is to be borne in mind that the petitioner was under the impression that the bridge course that he had pursued and completed with the KSOU did secure him the requisite educational qualification. However, when the deficiency was pointed out by the employer, he immediately proceeded to take up the SSLC examination and also passed the same.
20. This peculiar fact and circumstance of this case entitles the petitioner for the grant of the discretionary relief by this Court under Art 226, though technically, the petitioner was not qualified as on the date of notification. The fact that the petitioner had worked for two years and obtained the educational
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 qualification qualifies him for the discretionary relief in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
21. We are therefore inclined to set aside the order of the CAT and we direct the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner.
22. It is made clear that this order shall not be considered as a precedent as this order is being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing in this writ petition.
23. In the result, the impugned order dated 28.11.2019 is set aside and the proceedings initiated to cancel the appointment of the petitioner are quashed and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner on the basis that he has secured the SSLC qualification. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Parties to bear their respective costs."
11. From perusal of the judgment, it is clear that the Co-ordinate Bench was also considering the qualification secured by the candidate therein. It is clear that the candidate therein had also undertaken a course conducted by the KSOU. The question was whether the said course was equivalent to SSLC? In paragraph No.14, the Co-ordinate Bench noted that at the time of the
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 appointment, the candidate therein had produced the statement of marks issued by the KSOU relating to the bridge-course which stated it was equal to SSLC on the basis of which the respondent had processed the application, resulting in appointment. It is only after two years, based on a show-cause notice, action was taken against the petitioner therein. Suffice to state, in paragraph No.20, the Court has held that in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner therein is entitled for the grant of discretionary relief by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though technically the petitioner was not qualified as on the date of notification. It follows the petitioner who had worked for two years and obtained the educational qualification, had qualified for the discretionary relief.
12. We also, for parity of reasons, hold that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment in the aforesaid case. In the case on hand, the petitioner had worked for three years pursuant to his appointment in the
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 Postal Department, Government of India. On the date when the petitioner had got the appointment i.e., on 02.12.2014, there was no public notice issued by the UGC. The same was issued by UGC, only on 15.06.2015. By that time, the petitioner had already secured an appointment and had worked for almost six months. In any case, the impugned action was sought to be taken by the Postal Department only in the year 2017 when they issued a show-cause notice. By that time, the petitioner had put in three years of service.
13. During the course of hearing, it was put to Sri. Shetty as to whether there are similar cases in the Department and the respondents have taken action of termination in those cases, Sri. Shetty on instructions states, this is the solitary case where termination has been effected on the aforesaid ground. If that be so, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for by him before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we set
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:34998-DB WP No. 25540 of 2022 aside the order of the Tribunal dated 01.12.2022 in OA No.170/01819/2018.
14. We have been informed, on the strength of the stay order granted by the Tribunal and also by this Court in this petition, the petitioner continues to work on the post on which he has been appointed. If that be so, as we have set aside the order of the Tribunal, we also set aside the termination order dated 15.09.2017 and subsequent corrigendum dated 27.09.2017.
The writ petition is disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20