JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, a prayer for quashing the order dated 29.1.1999 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the Regional Employment Officer, Gorakhpur has been made. By the impugned order the petitioner has been informed that his appointment has been cancelled as it had been made without following the due process of recruitment during the imposition of ban.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is post-graduate in Commerce. Certain posts of Clerks/Typists fell vacant in the office of the Regional Employment Exchange office at Gorakhpur where he was registered. It is alleged that he was appointed according to law by respondent No. 1 on the post of Junior Clerk on 9.12.1997, against a vacancy of upgraded Senior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. The appointment letter of the petitioner has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and is as under :--
^^i=kad %& 12866&[email protected]@fu;[email protected] {ks=h; lsok;kstu dk;kZy;] xksj[kiqj] fnukad 9 fnlEcj] 1997 dk;kZy; & vkns'k foHkkxh; p;u lfefr ls p;fur Jh czgenso flag iq= Jh nku flag] eks- vygykniqj xksj[kiqj dks Jh dUgbZZ] mPphÑr ofj"B lgk;d in ds fo:) dfu"B fyfid in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls fnukad 31-1-98 rd ds fy, osrueku 950&1500 esa fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS A budh lsok;sa iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ gS A vr% blls iwoZ Hkh gVk;k tk ldrk gS A ¼vks-ih-flag½] {ks=h; lsok;kstu vf/kdkjh] xksj[kiqj A**
3. A perusal of the appointment letter shows that the petitioner had been selected by a Department Selection Committee, in leave vacancy and were purely temporary and he could be removed from service at any time even before 31.1.1998.
4. Another letter is alleged to have been issued on the same date i.e., 9.12.1987, permitting the petitioner to take charge of the upgraded post in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. Again by letter dated 31.12.1997, a fresh order is said to have been passed to the effect that he has been absorbed in the vacant post of Junior Clerk in the District Employment Office, Padrauna. This letter was thereafter cancelled and by another letter dated 31.12.1997 informing him that his appointment on the post of Junior Clerk has been cancelled and he is absorbed on the post of Senior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500.
5. It is alleged that on 30.1.1999, the petitioner was not permitted to sign the attendance register and order of cancellation of appointment dated 29.1.1999 was not served on him. Aggrieved, he filed Writ Petition No. 4665 of 1999, Brahma Deo Singh v. Regional Employment Officer, Gorakhpur and others, before this Court in which the following order was passed on 25.2.1998 :--
"Heard and perused the writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he is working as a Clerk in the office of respondent No. 1 but he is not being permitted to put signature on the attendance register.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the controversy involved herein, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner files representation the same shall be disposed of by respondent No. 1 by means of a reasoned order within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
Sd/ S.R. Singh, J., 25.2.99."
6. It is submitted that after obtaining the certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 25.2.1999, the petitioner moved a representation dated 11.3.1999, alongwith the said certified copy of the order dated 25.2.1999. The representation was decided on 30.3.1999.
7. It is submitted by the Counsel for the respondents that there was no vacancy of Junior Clerk existing in the office of the Regional Employment Office at Gorakhpur and as such there was no question of inviting any application for filling up the post of Junior Clerk in the leave vacancy against which the petitioner claims to have been given appointment. The appointment was temporary for specified period and he had not been selected according to rules and regulations for appointment on the post. It is further submitted that the appointment of not only the petitioner but about 50 more persons was illegally made for obvious ulterior reasons even though no posts existed in the department and further that the selection by the said Department Selection Committee was only an eye wash.
8. In so far as the allegation of the petitioner that the cancellation of the appointment letter dated 29.1.1999 was not served upon him is concerned, it is submitted that the letter of appointment dated 29.1.1997 was sent to the petitioner by a registered post which was returned undelivered with remarks that the addressee is not available despite the information left by the postman in his several visits. A photostat copy of the envelop is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit. In any case, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order and has filed a counter-affidavit thereafter as Annexure-8, hence it cannot be said that he was not aware of the order dated 29.1.1999. In Paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that on transfer of Sri O.P. Singh, the then Regional Employer Officer, who had made all the wrong appointments including that of the petitioner, the incumbent was directed by respondent No. 2 to look into the various irregularities and unauthorised appointments and it was found that as many as 51 appointments were made by Sri O.P. Singh on the post of Junior Clerks and Class IV posts including that of the petitioner without there being any vacancy.
9. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was temporary and against a leave vacancy which was not permissible to be made in view of the Government Order dated 3.11.1997 which strictly prohibits any appointment in Government Offices. It appears that the then Regional Employment Officer in collusion with the petitioner granted him appointment in contravention of the aforesaid Government Order dated 30.11.1997. Neither the petitioner could have been appointed nor could have been absorbed and any post which was not vacant. The appointment of the petitioner not on a vacant post and without following the procedure for recruitment was void and illegal. Securing appointment in unlawful manner and by misuse of power by the Appointing Authority cannot be legalised by this Court. A void appointment cannot vest the petitioner any legal right in the eye of law and principles of natural justice are not applied.
10. For these reasons this petition fails and is dismissed.