Shiv Sahai vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—The petitioner claims continuance as a Class IV employee in the district Judgeship of Mathura.

The District Judge has passed an order on 11.11.2009 prohibiting the petitioner from discharging his duties which order is under challenge. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that he was appointed on a regular basis and has been confirmed on the post after a report was submitted by the administration of the district judgeship.

The petitioner has been admittedly appointed in the year 2002. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was appointed after following the regular procedure as prescribed under the rules. The appointment order of the petitioner dated 24.5.2002 clearly recites that the petitioner was being appointed on ad hoc basis from 24.5.2002 to 30.4.2002. The then District Judge, Mathura had passed an order on 1.3.2006 continuing him until further orders.

While dealing a similar issue, this Court in the case of Veer Pal Singh v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 64404 of 2009, decided on 27.11.2009, has held that in the absence of any such regular appointment in accordance with rules, there is no vested right created in the employee to grant continuance. In the instant case, it is evident that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was appointed after following any procedure prescribed under the law. His continuance therefore was totally de hors any rules and providing of an opportunity would in no way improve the situation. It appears that the petitioner was inducted through the back door and he has now been shown the way out. In such a situation, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Veer Pal Singh and for the reasons and discussions in the judgment delivered by this Court today in Writ Petition No. 62910 of 2009, this writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.