JUDGEMENT (Per: Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J.) 1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Dhulla, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri D. S. Patni, leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Sharma, counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 3, 4 and 5. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18-12-2004 passed by respondent no. 1 terminating the services of the petitioner as Civil Judge (J.D.). Petitioner has, further, prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and pay him salary regularly. 3. Briefly stated, an advertisement No. 2/2002-2003 was published inviting applications for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), by the Uttaranchal Public Service Commission (U.P.S.C.). The petitioner, being a member of the caste 'Momim-Ansar' which is included in the list of Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.) in Uttaranchal, applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Admit Card was issued to the petitioner for the preliminary examination. The petitioner succeeded in the said examination and he was called for the main examination. The list of successful candidates for Interview was published in the News Paper by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner was one of the candidates included in the list of successful candidates. Accordingly, a letter was sent on 26-06-2003 calling him to appear for Interview on 26-07-2003. With this call letter for interview dated 26-06-2003, a format of OBC Certificate was sent which was to be submitted on the date of Interview. The said OBC certificate on prescribed format sent by UPSC was duly Issued by the Tehsildar Roorkee after examining the OBC Certificate of the petitioner No. 665 dated 29-06-2002. As per advertisement, apart from the said format of caste certificate issued by UPSC, there was no other requirement with regard to residence. The format as well as Certificate issued are quoted below :- English Text Office of the Tahsildar, Roorkee Letter No. 665 Na. Na. 2002 dt. CERTIFICATE OF OTHER BACKWARD CLASS Certified that Shri Arshad Jamil s/o Sri Jamil Ahmed rio 7, Sekhpuri in front of Deo Nurshing Home, Rurkee, Pargana and Tehsil Rurkee, District Haridwar is a member of Other Backward Caste, Momin Ansar of the State of Uttaranchal. Na. 2002 dt. CERTIFICATE OF OTHER BACKWARD CLASS Certified that Shri Arshad Jamil s/o Sri Jamil Ahmed rio 7, Sekhpuri in front of Deo Nurshing Home, Rurkee, Pargana and Tehsil Rurkee, District Haridwar is a member of Other Backward Caste, Momin Ansar of the State of Uttaranchal. This caste has been recognized under Schedule I of Uttaranchal Public Service Commission and Other Backward Classes Reservation Act, 1994 as enforceable in the State of Uttaranchal. It is also certified that Shri Arshad Jamil is not covered by Notification No. 22/16/92-ka-2/1995 nCI. dated 8 December, 1995 as amended vide Schedule2 of the said Act, 1994. Sri Arshad Jamil and/or his family ordinarily resides at 7, Sekhpuri Village, Roorkee Tehsil Haridwar Nagar of Uttaranchal State. Dated: 29-6-2002 Sd/- (illegible) Tehsildar, Rurkee After the interview, a list of successful candidates was issued by the UPSC recommending for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division). In this list the name of the petitioner found place at Serial No. 29 in the category of OBC, meaning thereby that the documents and certificates of the petitioner were found to be to the satisfaction of respondent no. 3. The list of successful candidates is extracted be/ow:- SI. No. Roll No. Name Category 1- 6643 Nitin Kumar 2- 2321 Dhananjay Kumar 3- 2041 Ajai Chaudhari OBC 4- 566 Anuj Kumar Sangal 5- 111 Raieev Kumar khulbe 6- 2119 Kaushal Kishor Shikla 7 - 65 Sudhir Kumar 8- 527 Amit Kumar Sirohi 9- 12320 Neetu Joshi Women 10- 2013 Sujata Singh 11- 13723 Shahanshal Mohd. Dilber Danish 12- 2124 Srikant Kumar Pandey 13- 173 Rakesh Kumar Mishra 14- 12281 Vindhyachal Singh 15- 1879 Km. Rama Pandey 16- 5717 Manish Mishra 17- 6943 Neena Agrawal 18- 3018 Brijendra Singh SC 19- 6228 Amarinder Singh 20- 3244 Bharat Bhushan Pandey 21- 101 Arvind Kumar OBC 22- 175 Varun Kumar 23- 461 Sayan Singh OBC 24- 7658 Km. Monika Mittal Women 25- 465 Km. Neelam " 26- 13108 Rajeev Kumar OBC 27- 3432 Anju Shri Juyal Women 28- 12524 Preetu Rani " 29- 12763 Arshad Jamil OBC 30- 1216 Sujeet Kumar SC 31- 2390 Mohd. Sultan OBC 32- 7467 Mahesh Chandra Kaushik OBC 33- 5981 Km. Shadav Bano OBC (W) 34- 9331 Naseem Ahamad OBC 35- 176 Abdul Kayum OBC 36- 10691 Mithilesh Jha Ex. Soldier 37- 6954 Shaish Chandra SC 38- 12519 Om Kumar SC 39- 337 Sanjeev Kumar SC 40- 1045 Km. Sultan OBC 32- 7467 Mahesh Chandra Kaushik OBC 33- 5981 Km. Shadav Bano OBC (W) 34- 9331 Naseem Ahamad OBC 35- 176 Abdul Kayum OBC 36- 10691 Mithilesh Jha Ex. Soldier 37- 6954 Shaish Chandra SC 38- 12519 Om Kumar SC 39- 337 Sanjeev Kumar SC 40- 1045 Km. Archana Sagar SC (Woman) 41- 7866 Kusum " 42- 191 Nandan Singh ST 4. The respondents, after examining the documents submitted by the petitioner, issued appointment letter dated 18th September, 2003 appointing him to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on probation for two years. The said appointment letter was issued subject to verification of character and medical report. 5. Pursuant to the said appointment order, a notification dated 18-9-2003 was issued by High Court of Uttaranchal posting the petitioner as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the vacant Court at Purola, Uttarkashi. 6. The Uttaranchal Public Service Commission vide letter dated 15-09-2003 requested the District Magistrate to verify the OBC certificate of the petitioner. Subsequently, the District Magistrate, Haridwar vide letter dated 2309-2003 wrote to Tehsildar Roorkee to verify the OBC certificate. In compliance of the order of the District Magistrate, the Tehsildar Roorkee, after taking the statement of neighbours and landlord of the petitioner and also after duly verifying the Assessment Register of the Nagar Palika, Roorkee, vide letter dated 31-102003 reported that the OBC certificate of the petitioner is correct and genuine and in accordance with the Government Order dated 29th March, 2003. The said correction is quoted below -English Text : Applicant Shri Arshad Jameel s/o Jameel Ahmed resident of 7 Shekhpuri, in front of Deo Nursing Home has got a certificate dated 29-6-2002 and has sworn an affidavit showing his address as 7 Shekhpuri, Roorkee and his caste as Momin Ansar. The certificate issued to Sri Arshad Jameel s/o Jameel Ahmed showing his residence as 7, Shekhpuri and his caste as Momin Ansar, Other Backward Caste, was correctly issued in accordance with the Government orders. 7. The respondent simultaneously also Inquired about the whereabouts of the petitioner through the police agency. The Station Officer, Gangnahar Roorkee, submitted a report to the S.S.P. Haridwar vide GBR No. 331{03 in which it is stated that the petitioner and his family are staying at Roorkee for the last more than 15 years. Details are quoted below :- English Text : Sir, Refer annexed letter G. V.R. No. 331/03. The Station Officer, Gangnahar Roorkee, submitted a report to the S.S.P. Haridwar vide GBR No. 331{03 in which it is stated that the petitioner and his family are staying at Roorkee for the last more than 15 years. Details are quoted below :- English Text : Sir, Refer annexed letter G. V.R. No. 331/03. Fresh enquiry was conducted in respect of Arshad Jamil. The report is as hereunder : 1. Shri Arshad Jamil s/o Jamil Ahmed R/o Shekhpuri, resides with family in the house of Shri Furkan Ahmed situated in front of Deo Nurshing Home, P.S. Ganga Nahar, Roorkee as tenant since the year 1991. Prior to it he lived in the house of Smt. Julisha situated at Mohatta Old Tehsit, Roorkee since the year 1988 as tenant. He has been permanently residing at Rurkee for the last about 15 years. It has been informed that prior to it he had been residing at Mohgatta Khalapara P.S. Muzaffarnagar, District Muzaffar Nagar. The photocopies of Ration card, voter list, voter identification card, address etc. are enclosed. 2. As per the record of the police station there is no mention about any conviction. 3. The character was found to be satisfactory. After enquiry the report is forwarded to you, Sir. 8. Through letter dated 22-05-2004 sent by the District Judge, Uttarkashi, a reference was made regarding office memorandum dated 13-05-2004 and D.O. letter dated 21-05-2004 sent by the Registrar General High Court, and explanation was called from the petitioner. It is alleged in the office memorandum dated 1305-2004 that as per complaint of one Sri Abdul Kareem dated 12-01-2004, the petitioner obtained appointment in the judicial service on the basis of forged OBC certificate. It has further been alleged that on the said complaint, an inquiry was conducted by DM Haridwar, who has stated that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Muzaffarnagar U.P., whereas the petitioner had stated that he was a resident of State of Uttaranchal. The petitioner was asked to explain why the appointment of the petitioner should not be cancelled. 9. According to for the petitioner, the said inquiry made by the District Magistrate, Haridwar was ex-parte and contrary to the guidelines contained in the Government Order dated 29-03-2003. It is also stated that no date has been mentioned in the report of the District Magistrate. 10. 9. According to for the petitioner, the said inquiry made by the District Magistrate, Haridwar was ex-parte and contrary to the guidelines contained in the Government Order dated 29-03-2003. It is also stated that no date has been mentioned in the report of the District Magistrate. 10. In reply to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner submitted his letter dated 29-05-2004 requesting to furnish the copies of documents/information to enable him to submit a proper explanation. The documents included the alleged complaint dated 12-01-2004. Contents of the reply letter of the petitioner are quoted below :- "Sir, I am in receipt of the aforesaid D. O. sent to me through the Hon'ble District Judge, Uttarkashi by which I have been called upon to submit my explanation against the aforesaid show cause notice. It is not possible to give reply to the aforesaid show cause notice unless the following documents/information are furnished to me. Kindly furnish the copies of following necessary documents/information to enable me to reply to the show cause notice. 1. Copy of the alleged complaint dated 12-01-2004 of some Sri Abdul Karim, S/o Sri Waheed, R/o Sheikhpur, Roorkee against me. 2. Who is Abdul Karim, S/o Sri Waheed, R/o Sheikhpuri, Roorkee and how and why is he interested in making complaint against me. 3. The order/letter by which District Magistrate, Haridwar was directed to conduct enquiry upon the said complaint against me. 4. The report/letter of District Magistrate, Haridwar by which he informed that I am not a resident of Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar. 5. The evidence before the District Magistrate, Haridwar on the basis of which he sent his enquiry report against me. Thanking you. Yours truly, (Arshad Jamil) Civil Judge (J.D.) Purola, Distt. Uttarkashi" 11. Thereafter, on 13'" July, 2004, recommendation was sent by the High Court for terminating the services of the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the request to the respondent to furnish the documents, the same were not supplied to the petitioner and hence after waiting for some time the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 21-07-2004 through the Registrar General, High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital to the respondent no.1. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the request to the respondent to furnish the documents, the same were not supplied to the petitioner and hence after waiting for some time the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 21-07-2004 through the Registrar General, High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital to the respondent no.1. Petitioner has submitted that the minutes of the Full Court meeting held on 13'" July, 2004 with regard to the recommendation for terminating the petitioner's services were not confirmed in the Full Court meeting held on 23-09-2004 or thereafter. 13. On 27-07-2004, the petitioner also submitted his reply to the explanation called by respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 21-05-2004. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as stated in the Impugned order, the reply of the petitioner dated 20/21-07-2004 was sent to the respondent no. 1 through respondent nO.3 on 07-08-2004 and that the forwarding letter of the reply by the respondent no. 3 indicates that the earlier recommendation sent by the High Court with regard to termination of service of the petitioner was not confirmed. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the foliowing points 1) There was no compliance of Article 235 of the Constitution of India as there was no material before the Full Court Meeting held on 13'" July, 2004 to take a decision recommending the termination of the services of the petitioner. 2) Since the above decision taken in the Full Court Meeting held on 13'" July, 2004, was not confirmed In the subsequent meeting of the Full Court held on 22-09-2004, it has become irrelevant. 3) In view of Section 9 of the U.P. Reservation (For Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class) Act, 1994 read with the Government Order dated 29th March, 2003 which refers to the "Ordinary Resident", the termination order is illegal and liable to be quashed. 4) The termination order has neither been passed by the Appointing Authority i.e. the Governor of Uttaranchal, nor any approval has been sought from the Governor. Hence the Impugned order Is without Jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. Point Nos. 1 and 2 : 16. Article 235 of the Constitution of India provides as under:- "235. 4) The termination order has neither been passed by the Appointing Authority i.e. the Governor of Uttaranchal, nor any approval has been sought from the Governor. Hence the Impugned order Is without Jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. Point Nos. 1 and 2 : 16. Article 235 of the Constitution of India provides as under:- "235. Control over subordinate courts.- The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law". As will appear from the aforesaid Article the control over district courts and the courts subordinate thereto, including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to persons belonging to the Judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district Judge shall be vested in the High Court. 17. In the case Registrar, High Court of Madras Vs. R. Rajiah 1988 (3) SCC 211 their Lordships of the Apex Court have classified the requirement of Article 235 of the Constitution of India in two parts. Under the first part a decision has to be made as to whether any action is required to be taken against an officer and under the second part the decision will be carried out by a formal order. According to the Supreme Court the power of control envisaged under Article 235 of the Constitution of India relates to the power of making a decision by the High Court against a member of the Subordinate Judicial Service and such a decision has to be taken by holding an inquiry by the High Court against the member concerned. Relevant paragraph 12 is quoted below :- "An action against any government servant consists of two parts. Under the first part, a decision will have to be made whether an action will be taken against the government servant. Relevant paragraph 12 is quoted below :- "An action against any government servant consists of two parts. Under the first part, a decision will have to be made whether an action will be taken against the government servant. Under the second part, the decision will be carried out by a formal order. The power of control envisaged under Article 235 of the Constitution relates to the power of making a decision by the High Court against a member of the subordinate judicial service. Such a decision is arrived at by holding an enquiry by the High Court against the member concerned. n 18. While interpreting Article 235 of the Constitution of India with regard to the superintendence over lower judiciary in T. Lakshmi Narasimha cahri Vs. High Court AIR 1996 SC 2067, It has been held by the Supreme Court that under Article 235 the power of the High Court is to recommended to the State and in formulating its recommendation, the High Court is to keep in view decisions relating to this aspect. . 19. In Madan Mohan Chaudhary AIR 1999 SC 1018, the Apex Court has observed as under :- "It was thus a case where there was no material on the basis of which an opinion could have been reasonably formed that it would be in the public interest to retire the appellant from service prematurely in terms of Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code. n 20. In Registrar (Admn.) Vs. Sisisr Kanta satapathy (1999) (7) SCC 725, relying upon the earlier judgment in Registrar, High Court of Madras Vs. R. Rajiah (1988) 3 SCC 211, the Supreme Court held as follows :_ "12. In Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajiah (1988) 3 SCC 211, this Court had occasion to consider the validity of an order of compulsory retirement passed by the High Court. The learned Judges held that the proper procedure for the High Court was to recommend the case for compulsory retirement and it was for the Governor on whom the recommendation of the High Court was binding, to pass the formal order. This Court in the said case observed as follows : (SCC pp. 217-18, 219 and 220, paras 12, 16 and 18) "12. "The test of control is not the passing of an order against a member of the subordinate judicial service, but the decision to take such action. This Court in the said case observed as follows : (SCC pp. 217-18, 219 and 220, paras 12, 16 and 18) "12. "The test of control is not the passing of an order against a member of the subordinate judicial service, but the decision to take such action. It may be that so far as the members of the subordinate judicial service are concerned, it is the Governor, who being the appointing authority, has to pass an order of compulsory retirement or any order of punishment against such a member. But passing or signing of such order by the Governor will not necessarily take away the control of the High Court vested in it under Article 235 of the Constitution, An action against any government servant consists of two parts. Under the first part, a decision will have to be made whether an action will be taken against the government servant, Under the second part, the decision will be carried out by a formal order. The power of control envisaged under Article 235 of the Constitution relates to the power of making a decision by the High Court against a member of the subordinate judicial service. Such a decision is arrived at by holding an enquiry by the High Court against the member concerned, 16. It is apparent from the observation extracted above that this Court also understood the power of control of the High Court as the power of taking decision against a member of the subordinate judicial service. The High Court is the only authority that can take such a decision. The High Court will hold an enquiry and decide on the result of such enquiry whether any action will be taken against a member of the subordinate judicial service. If it comes to the conclusion that such an action is required to be taken. It will make a recommendation in that regard to the State Governor who will make an order in accordance with the recommendation of the High Court. 18. In High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v, Ramesh Chand Paliwal (1998) 3 SCC 72, a two-Judge Bench of this Court while construing the scope and extent of Articles 233 to 235 of the Constitution, held as follows : (SCC pp. 86-87, para 34). . "34. 18. In High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v, Ramesh Chand Paliwal (1998) 3 SCC 72, a two-Judge Bench of this Court while construing the scope and extent of Articles 233 to 235 of the Constitution, held as follows : (SCC pp. 86-87, para 34). . "34. This article shows that the High Court has to exercise its administrative judicial and disciplinary control over the members of the judicial service of the State. The word 'control' referred to in this article, is used in a comprehensive sense to include general superintendence of the working of the Subordinate Courts, disciplinary control over the Presiding Officer of the Subordinate Courts and to recommend the imposition of punishment of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank or compulsory retirement 'Control' would also include suspension of a member of the judicial service for purposes of holding a disciplinary enquiry, transfer, confirmation and promotion. n 21. In Gauhati High Court Vs. Kuladhar Phukan AIR 2002 SC 1.589, while Interpreting Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court has observed as under :- "The consultation here means meaningful, effective and conscious consultation. In Tej Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and another (1986) 3 SCC 604), it was held that in a matter affecting the service career of a judicial officer ordinarily the initiative for an action must come from the high Court and even otherwise in the absence of recommendation of the High Court an action taken by the Governor would be illegal and devoid of constitutional validity. Such, error, if committed, would be incurable and even an ex post facto approval would not cure the invalidity. 22, In samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1.974 SC 21.92 the Apex Court 'las observed as under :- "76. The High Court under Article 235 is vested with the control of subordinate judiciary. The High Court according to the appellant failed to act in terms of the provisions of the Constitution and abdicated the control by not having an inquiry through Judicial Officers subordinate to the Control of the High Court but asking the Government to enquire through the Vigilance Department. n 23. The High Court according to the appellant failed to act in terms of the provisions of the Constitution and abdicated the control by not having an inquiry through Judicial Officers subordinate to the Control of the High Court but asking the Government to enquire through the Vigilance Department. n 23. From the above judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that even though the Governor is the appointing authority of a member of the subordinate judicial service the decision to terminate the service of a member of the subordinate judiciary has to be made by the High Court. Only if Such a decision is taken by the High Court and a recommendation is sent to the appointing authority, the formal order of termination of service can be issued by the appointing authority, If the order of termination is not on the basis of a valid recommendation made by the High Court the termination of service is illegal. The High Court can take a decision to terminate the service of a member of the subordinate Judiciary only after holding an enquiry by the High Court and only if there are sufficient materials before the High Court to come to the conclusion that termination of service is necessary, If the decision of the High Court to terminate the service of a member of the subordinate judiciary is made without holding an enquiry or without having sufficient materials before the High Court to arrive at a conclusion that termination of service is necessary, the said decision of the High Court would be arbitrary and illegal. In the present case it is not disputed that the High Court had not conducted any enquiry against the petitioner through a Judicial officer subordinate to the control of the High Court. It is without holding such an enquiry that the High Court decided to terminate the service of the petitioner and sent the recommendation to the Government. Therefore, the decision of the High Court and the recommendation sent by the High Court to the Government are illegal and 'invalid. Any order of termination of service passed on the basis of an invalid and illegal decision and recommendation also is illegal and invalid. Hence the impugned order of termination of the petitioner is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 24. Any order of termination of service passed on the basis of an invalid and illegal decision and recommendation also is illegal and invalid. Hence the impugned order of termination of the petitioner is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 24. It is also not disputed that though the petitioner had requested for the copies of the documents on' the basis of which the High Court had sought his explanation they were not supplied to him. Even the copy of the complaint stated to have ,been made by Sri Abdul Kareem was not given to the petitioner. Even then the petitioner submitted Annexure-18 reply dated 27-7-04 denying the allegation against him. But In the meanwhile, on 13-7-04 the High Court decided to terminate the service 'of the petitioner and sent a letter to the Government recommending termination of service of the petitioner. 'It was on the basis of the said recommendation that Annexure-l order dated 18-12-04 was Issued by the Government terminating the services of the petitioner. After the decision dated 13-7-04 of the Full Court of the High Court and before issuing Annexure-l order dated 18-12-04, the petitioner's explanation dated 27-7-04 was received 'by the High Court. Probably in view of the said explanation dated 27-7-04 the Full Court in its meeting held on 23-9-04 did, not confirm the minutes of the meeting on 137-04 with regard to the termination of service of the petitioner. However the said decision dated 23-9-04 of the Full Court declining to confirm the minutes of 13-72004 was communicated to the Government only through a letter dated 15-12-04 which was received by the Government only on 20-12-04. In the meanwhile, Annexure-l order dated 18-12-04 terminating the service of the petitioner had been issued by the Government. 'In' such 'circumstances, there is force In the contention of the petitioner, that if the Government has been informed of the decision dated 23-9-04 of the Full Court of the High Court, the Government would not have issued Annexure-l order. At any rate when the Full Court of the High Court declined to confirm its decision taken on 13-7-04, the said decision lost Its significance and relevance. The termination of service of the petitioner based on such a recommendation which had 'lost its significance and relevance is defective and vitiated. At any rate when the Full Court of the High Court declined to confirm its decision taken on 13-7-04, the said decision lost Its significance and relevance. The termination of service of the petitioner based on such a recommendation which had 'lost its significance and relevance is defective and vitiated. Even otherwise, In the absence of any enquiry conducted by the High Court through a judicial officer subordinate to the control of the High Court the only material before the Full Court of the High Court on 13-7-04 was the complaint against the petitioner, the show cause notice dated 13-5-04 issued to the petitioner on the basis of the Government letter dated 18-10-03 directing the District Magistrate Haridwar to enquire into the said complaint and the letter dated 20-3-2004 of the Senior Superintendent of Police Haridwar addressed to the District Magistrate. The High Court did not bother to furnish to the petitioner copies of the documents relied on in the show cause ,notice or to wait till he submitted his explanation dated 27-7-04:-The decision dated 13-7-04 of the Full Court was taken in a hurry and without 'having sufficient materials to arrive at a conclusion that termination of service of the petitioner is necessary. Thus, the 'decision dated 13-7-04 of the Full Court of the High Court was arbitrary and was not based on sufficient material. The decision was taken also in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioner was not given sufficient and effective opportunity to represent his case. For these reasons also, the decision dated 13-7-04 of the Full Court and the recommendation made by the Full Court to terminate the service of the petitioner are illegal and invalid. Consequently the impugned Annexure-l order also is illegal and invalid. Point NO.3, 25, Petitioner has submitted that he has submitted certificate of OBC on prescribed format in consonance with the Govt. Order dated 29-03-2003. The said format was verified on 31-10-2003 and the same was found to be valid. The same is quoted below :- English Text: Please refer to letter No. 1633/Sa Saha verification dated 23'" September, 2003 of the office of the District Magistrate which is in respect of enquiry of the certificate of backward class issued to Arshad Jamil. The said format was verified on 31-10-2003 and the same was found to be valid. The same is quoted below :- English Text: Please refer to letter No. 1633/Sa Saha verification dated 23'" September, 2003 of the office of the District Magistrate which is in respect of enquiry of the certificate of backward class issued to Arshad Jamil. In respect of the aforesaid, the enquiry was conducted through Inspector of Revenue and I myself by going at the spot conducted the enquiry and perused the documents produced by him and also perused the government orders. The Statements of the persons of locality namely Sri Furkan Ahmed s/o Abdul Latif r/o 7 Shekhpuri, Jamil Ahmed s/o Jahar Ahmed r/o 7 Sekhpuri, Ekbal Ahmed s/o Abdul Majid r/o 149, Shekhpuri and Ajijudrahaman s/o Habiburrahman r/o 88 Shekhpuri, Rurkee were taken by the Revenue Inspector and myself. From the statement of all the persons also it was confirmed that Arshad Jamil s/o Jamil Ahmed resided at 7 Shekhpur, Rurkee, Haridwar since 1991 and caste momin ansar comes in the list of other backward class in Uttaranchal. 26. On 2nd .March, 2005, the aforesaid caste certificate was cancelled but the High Court on 6th May, 2005 set aside the order in Writ Petition No. 448 of 2005. The operative portion of the order dated 6-5-2005 of the High Court is quoted below :- "In the above circumstances, Annexure 1 Order dated 02-03-2005 is quashed. It will be open to the third respondent to issue notice to the petitioner proposing to cancel the caste certificate already issued to him and giving him reasonable opportunity to state his objections, if any, to the proposal and to pass fresh order in accordance with law after considering the objections, if any, submitted by the petitioner. Thus the caste certificate issued to the petitioner still holds good and unless and until the said caste certificate Is legally cancelled, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as a member of Other Backward Class. The enquiry report sent by the District Magistrate, Haridwar cannot nullify the effect of the above mentioned caste certificate. 27. Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 known as U.P. Act No.4 of 1994 provides for reservation in the public services in favour of persons belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes. 27. Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 known as U.P. Act No.4 of 1994 provides for reservation in the public services in favour of persons belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes. The caste Momin Ansar is included as Item No. 43 In Schedule I to the said Act. Section 9 of the aforesaid Act deals with Caste Certificate. It reads as under :- "9. Caste certificate.- For the purposes of reservation provided under this Act, caste certificate shall be issued by such authority or officer and in such manner and form, as the State Government may, by order, provide. A caste certificate was issued to the petitioner In accordance with the above provision and in view of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 448 of 2005, the said Caste Certificate will hold good as the cancellation has already been set aside by this Court. 28. On 29th March, 2003 a notification was Issued under the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. Paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of the translated copy of the said notification is quoted below :- "In the direct recruitment to Public Services, under the Government, the provisions for the reservation for the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes have been provided by the V.P. Public Services (Reservation for Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (as amended and adopted). The description of the Other Backward Castes have been specified in Schedule 1 of the said Act, but the reservation would not be applicable to the persons even if he is a member of the included caste in Schedule-1 if he 326 is covered by the provisions mentioned in Rule-3 sub Rule (1) read with Schedule-2 of the Act. . 2. For getting the reservation as per the said reservation Act, it is necessary to produce the "caste certificate". In Section-9 of the Act it has been provided that such certificate shall be issued by such competent officer or officer and in such form and Performa, which .the State Government notifies by an order. . 3. . 2. For getting the reservation as per the said reservation Act, it is necessary to produce the "caste certificate". In Section-9 of the Act it has been provided that such certificate shall be issued by such competent officer or officer and in such form and Performa, which .the State Government notifies by an order. . 3. By the powers given vide Section-9 of the Act, the State Government has taken a decision that in future certificate for Schedule caste, Schedule Tribe and Other Backward Classes shall be issued by District Magistrate/ Addl. District Magistrate/Tehsildar of the area in whose jurisdiction the applicant resides or where he has been born, after completing the required formalities certificate shall be issued in the prescribed format by his signature. No reservation be given on certificate issued in unauthorized manner. Govt. has prescribed formats for Schedule caste, Schedule Tribe and .other Backward Classes, which are enclosed. " The Hindi Translation of Para9raph 3 of the aforesaid notification dated 29th March, 2003 Is quoted below :- A perusal of both the English and the Hindi versions shows that under Section 9 of the Act, the caste certificate for other Backward Classes shall be issued by the competent authority in whose jurisdiction the appellant resides or where he was born. Thus the certificate issued under -Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 still holds good in accordance with the aforesaid notification. But this aspect was not taken into consideration by the High Court while recommending to terminate the services of. the petitioner. Point no. 3, therefore, is decided in favour of the petitioner. 29. Point NO.4: Rule 24 of the U.P. Nyayik Constitution Sewa Niyamawali, 1951 provides as follows:- "24. Termination of the period of probation. - (1) If it appears to the Governor at any time during or at the end of the period of probation or extended period of probation, as the case may be, that a probationer has not made sufficient use of his opportunities or has otherwise failed to give satisfaction, he may be reverted to his substantive post, if any, or if he does not hold a lien on any substantive post, his services may be dispensed with. (2) A probationer whose services are dispensed with during or at the end the period of probation, as the case may be, under sub rule (1) shall not be entitled to any compensation. State Counsel rightly pointed out that though the business of the government is being conducted in the name of the Governor it is not always necessary that the order should be actually passed by the Governor himself. In the judgment in Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another AIR 1974 SC Page 2192, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "82. The appellant Samsher Singh in the context of the Rules of Business contended that the removal of a Subordinate Judge from Service is a personal power of the Governor and is incapable of being delegated or dealt with under the Rules of Business. We have already held that the Governor can allocate the business of the Government to the Ministers and such allocation is no delegation and it is an exercise of executive power by the Governor through the Council or Officers under the Rules of Business. The contention of the appellant that the order was passed by the Chief Minister without the formal approval of the Governor is therefore, untenable. The order is the order of the Governor. In this case in view of the allocation of business, the order of termination was passed by the Chief Minister and it was not necessary to send the file to the Governor. It may be mentioned in this context that, even though the Governor is the appointing authority of Civil Judges (J.D.), the file was not sent to the Governor when the petitioner was appointed. Hence we do not find any merit in the petitioner's contention that the termination order was not passed by the competent authority. 30. In the light of the discussion above, we hold that the termination of the service of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and hence liable to be quashed. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18-12-04 passed by Respondent No. 1 is quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue necessary posting orders to the petitioner immediately. The petitioner will be treated to have continued in service without any break, but he will not be entitled to any salary or allowances for the period he has not actually worked.