AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kant and Abhinava Upadhya, JJ.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. With the consent of the parties Counsel the petition is being disposed of finally.
Sri O.P. Srivastava appearing for the petitioner says that the appointment of the petitioner as adhoc Government Counsel, D.G.C., A.D.G.C. etc., has not been extended and the assignment has been terminated in some cases without giving any reason and in rest of the cases on the ground that because of scarcity of work, there is no need of adhoc appointees.
Submission is that these persons have a light to continue till fresh appointment or engagement on the post is made and they are also entitled for being considered for renewal of their term.
Learned Standing Counsel, says that the petitioner is adhoc appointee and he does not have any right to hold the post, therefore, his case cannot be considered for renewal.
We have considered the arguments and we are of the view that the appointment of the petitioner having been made on adhoc basis, that is, without following the procedure prescribed, the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue, but in case any adhoc appointment is to be made or any stopgap arrangement is to be made, then the petitioner shall be allowed to continue till the regular selection is made.
In case, no such stopgap arrangement or adhoc appointment is to be made and only regular selection is to be made, then the case of the petitioner may also be considered, if he applies and is found eligible. Till then, the interim order, if any, operating in favour of the petitioner, shall continue.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of accordingly.