AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.—After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Irshad Ali, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel, it appears that the petitioner''s claim for relief is solely based on the observation made in the impugned order that the petitioner was found working in the institution. The learned Counsel for the Committee of Management contends that from the impugned order it is apparent that there was no material to show that the petitioner was ever appointed in any appropriate selection process nor any appointment letter was ever issued to him. The petitioner could not show from the Writ Petition or its enclosures that the said facts contended by the respondents are in any way incorrect. Admittedly there is no appointment letter and also admittedly the petitioner was not appointed following any appropriate selection process.
The learned Counsel for the respondents produced materials to show that the petitioner was appointed in a peculiar circumstance for gaining experience and he will not claim any right for the same but such documents produced at this stage cannot be taken into consideration.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the observation of Supreme Court made in the case of Saran Kumar Gour (Smt.) and others State of U.P. and others, reported in 1993 SCC (2) 749.
A perusal of the said judgment shows that the circumstances considered therein were totally different and the observation relied upon by the petitioner was made only in the factual background of the said case and the same does not apply in the present case.
In view of the findings as above that there was neither appointment letter of petitioner nor there was selection of the petitioner for the said post, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and no interference is required in this case.
Therefore this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed.