Rouf Shaheen vs State

The short point projected in the appeal is that learned Single Judge while interpreting the order of appointment of the appellant has observed that

the appointment of the appellant was for a period of 89 days only or till selection by the Subordinate Service Recruitment Board is made to the

post, with the stipulation which ever is earlier. As because order of appointment has been made on 111997, yet period of 89 days have not

expired and the petitioner has approached learned Single Judge and sought indulgence of the court and wanted to extend his services by a judicial

order.

Ld. Single Judge after appreciating the matter and the law on the point has rightly directed the appellant to approach the authorities concerned

for extension of his order of appointment on adhoc basis. Instead of approaching the authorities, the petitioner has approached this court by way of

letters Patent Appeal.

Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant at length.

We do not find that there is any flaw in the order passed by learned Single Judge and we direct the petitioner/appellant to approach the

authorities/respondents for continuation of the order in case they have to continue with the adhoc arrangement till selection to the post is made.

However, it may be noted that in case the authorities have to continue with the arrangement on adhoc basis till selection is made, they shall not

substitute any adhoc appointee in place of the appellant.

With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of accordingly.