Virendra vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner has been performing and discharging duties as CSSD Technician at N.H.R.M. Medical College, Gorakhpur. Vide letter dated 18.08.2010, he was asked to look after the work of Assistant Engineer (Civil) also. Said order has been revoked on 20.12.2011 by the Principal of the College. At this juncture, petitioner has rushed to this Court.

Sri Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that, as no appointment has been made on the post in question in substantive capacity or otherwise, petitioner ought to have been continued to perform and discharge the additional duty of Assistant Engineer (Civil). In view of this, the order passed smacks of arbitrariness.

Countering the said submissions, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter, as such no interference should be made, as none of the legal rights of the petitioner has been infringed, and it was merely a stop gap arrangement.

Record in question reflects that as a stop gap arrangement, the petitioner vide letter dated 18.08.2010 had been asked to perform duties of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in addition to the duties of his own post, but subsequently, said order has been revoked by the Principal of the institution, and the petitioner has been asked to perform the duties as were being performed by him in the past prior to 18.08.2010. Making of such arrangement is within the domain of the authority concerned, and insistence of petitioner as a matter of right that as no alternative arrangement has been made, the petitioner should be permitted to continue on the post in question, cannot be accepted as no legal right has accrued in favour of the petitioner, prompting him to claim continuance on the post in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Atul Kumar Nigam vs. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (90) RD 764. Said judgment in the facts of the present case will not apply, as this is not a case of termination. Here, at no point of time any regular process of selection had taken place, rather as a stop gap arrangement, petitioner was assigned additional duty, and only that additional duty has been withdrawn from him.

Petitioner has placed further reliance on Rule 36 of Subordinate Offices Clerk Grade Employees (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985. This rule will also not come to rescue of the petitioner, inasmuch as contingencies mentioned in the said rule are not at all in existence, as such there is no question of granting any relaxation, as the arrangement in question was totally temporary.

Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.