Alok Singh, J. (Oral):— Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 24.9.2007, Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, whereby services of the petitioner were discontinued during the probation period on offering one month's salary and other perks.
2. Vide advertisement dated 8.2.2002, applications were invited for recruitment in Civil Police, Uttarakhand. Petitioner applied and was selected against the OBC reservation. When the petitioner was undergoing training, it was transpired that the petitioner was/is permanent resident of District Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh and was/is not a permanent resident of Uttarakhand, therefore, was/is not eligible for OBC reservation. Consequently, impugned order came to be passed.
3. I have heard Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Brief Holder appearing for the respondents, and have carefully perused the record.
4. Perusal of application form submitted by the petitioner, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner himself, would reveal that the petitioner has shown his permanent address as Lalpur (Barahi), P.S Bhagatpur, Tehsil and District Moradabad.
5. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, fairly submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh. Mr. Consul further contends that the petitioner has not concealed any fact while applying for the post and he has shown himself as permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and has shown himself as Jat, the then OBC, in the application form, therefore, petitioner has not played any fraud, and if the petitioner was granted appointment with open eyes then the services of the petitioner should not be terminated. He further contends that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
6. Undisputedly, caste reservations are available to the permanent residents of Uttarakhand in the State of Uttarakhand and the petitioner is not a permanent resident of Uttarakhand.
7. Perusal of CA-5 of the counter affidavit would reveal that before passing the impugned order, opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and he was given sufficient opportunity to make his statements and his statements were recorded.
8. It is also settled position of law that services of a probationer can be discontinued on payment of one month's salary and perks, which was done in the present case.
9. Undisputedly, the petitioner was given appointment against the OBC post and the petitioner is not an OBC of Uttarakhand. Therefore, setting aside the impugned order on the hyper-technical ground would amount to restoration of the services of the petitioner, which he was not otherwise entitled for.
10. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.