AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.M. Sahai, J.—Admit. Mr N J Shah, learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service of notice of admission. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have taken up this Appeal for final hearing.
We have heard Mr S.D. Suthar holding brief of Mr N K Majmudar, learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 10.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9040 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by recording the following findings:
Mr. Suthar submitted that in the last petition this Court had reserved a right to the Petitioner to ask for permanency/regularization if the post is found to be a sanctioned one. The Petitioner made a representation which has been turned down without paying any heed to the Petitioner''s case.
Having gone through the representation, the Petitioner has not been able to indicate that the post on which he was serving, was a sanctioned post. He has only developed a new argument that because he was being paid by the Collector out of contingency fund, Collector was empowered to create such a sanctioned post and, therefore, the post was sanctioned, for which there is no basis. That apart, it is a misconception on the part of the learned advocate for the Petitioner that the Petitioner''s right was reserved to make a representation if the post is found to be sanctioned one. The Court, in the earlier petition, in terms stated that there is no sanctioned post and the Petitioner may request the Respondent-authorities to consider his case if in future post is sanctioned. No such development is claimed to have taken place and as such, no right has accrued to the Petitioner.
As there was no sanctioned post, the Appellant could not be appointed and that too the payment made to him from the contingency fund would not confer any right on him to claim any post with the Respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.