Raj Kumar Dhar Dubey vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J

Heard Sri A. Chaturvedi, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

Petitioner was given stop gap officiating arrangement to officiate duty on the post of Survey Naib-Tehsildar by order dated 22.03.1991, which reads as under:

''फैजाबाद सर्वे इकाई के पेशी कानूनगो श्री राजकुमार धर दूबे की प्रोन्नति उसी सर्वे इकाई मे सर्वे नायब तहसीलदार के पद पर कार्यभार ग्रहण करने के दिनांक से स्थानीय व्यवस्था में की जाती है। उपरोक्त नियुक्ति तदर्थ एवं अस्थायी की जा रही है किसी भी समय उपरोक्त नियुक्ति परिषद के आदेशों से निरस्त की जा सकती है।"

"Shri Raj Kumar Dhar Dubey, Peshi Kanoongo of the Faizabad Survey Unit is promoted to the post of Survey Naib Tehsildar in the same Unit as a measure of local arrangement from the date of his taking over the charge. The aforesaid appointment is being done on ad hoc and temporary basis. The aforesaid appointment can anytime be cancelled under the orders of the aforesaid appointment council."

(English Translation by Court)

By means of impugned order dated 05.10.2002, aforesaid arrangement has been terminated and petitioner has been directed to work on his substantive post of Survey Kanoongo.

It is contended that impugned order has been passed without any show cause notice or opportunity to petitioner, i.e. without complying with the principles of natural justice and hence the same is illegal.

However, I find no force in the submission.

Since promotion was made only as stop gap officiating arrangement and purely ad-hoc in nature, hence petitioner had no right to continue. Question of compliance of principles of natural justice, therefore, does not arise inasmuch as arrangement made in the case in hand is neither promotion nor conferred the status of higher post upon the incumbent concerned but only for the purpose of day to day work such arrangement was made. It does not confer any right upon the incumbent concerned to hold the post.

A Division Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar Makhija and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2004 (1) UPLBEC 87 observed:

"Officiating or temporary appointment confers no right to the post. It is well settled in service law that while a permanent appointee has a right to the post, an officiating, temporary, casual or daily wage appointee has no right to the post."

Similarly, another Division Bench, while considering distinction between promotion and handing over charge, in Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1998(1) UPLBEC 280 in para 11 said:

"11. A person, who is authorised to carry on some additional work, carries no right, no lien and is not entitled for any pecuniary benefits for doing certain extra work."

In view of above, I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition.

Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.