Ritika Singh Sisodiya/TNN
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad HC has quashed the termination of services of 48 assistant managers appointed in the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Bank in 2016, holding that the competent authority could not terminate their services merely on the directions of the principal secretary without independently applying its mind.Justice Rajeev Singh passed the order while allowing separate writ petitions filed by Manish Kumar and 47 others. The court quashed the orders relating to termination from service, including the order dated June 7, 2019, and directed that the petitioners be permitted to resume duties on their respective posts. However, it clarified that the period between their termination from service and reinstatement would be treated on the principle of “no work, no pay”.The dispute arose from the recruitment process for assistant managers initiated in 2015. Initially, candidates were required to possess graduation degrees in certain specified subjects. Subsequently, with the approval of the competent authority, the eligibility criterion was modified to graduation in any subject with a minimum of 50% marks. A revised advertisement was issued on July 22, 2015. The petitioners were selected thereafter on the basis of a written examination and interview.An unsuccessful candidate had challenged the selection process before the HC. Following an interim order, the appointments of the selected candidates were made subject to the final outcome of the case. The petition was eventually dismissed on March 1, 2023.Meanwhile, an inquiry was conducted into allegations of irregularities in the recruitment process. On the basis of a govt letter dated April 27, 2019, directions were issued for cancellation of the appointments of the 50 assistant managers. The bank’s management committee decided to terminate their appointments on May 30, 2019, and termination orders were issued on June 7, 2019.Senior advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the termination orders did not attribute any individual illegal act or misconduct to the petitioners. , The court, observing that an employee’s services cannot be terminated merely on the direction of another authority, directed the authorities to take the petitioners back in service.
