Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 984 of 2019 Petitioner :- Keshav Dev Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
This petition impugns an order pursuant to which the claim of the petitioner for service benefits and continuity has been negatived by the respondents. As is evident from the order impugned the same has been made in light of the adverse findings which came to be entered by the Division Bench on the Special Appeal preferred by the petitioner. The Division Bench while dismissing his appeal observed thus:
"Admittedly, the appellant has been engaged as a stop gap arrangement on temporary basis. In fact, on the death of Hotam Singh on 28.08.1995, the vacancy had become substantive and on that date itself the appellant's right to continue on the said post ceased. However, on the strength of the interim order, he continued to work for about seventeen years. Merely because, he worked for seventeen years on the strength of the interim order, he does not have vested right on the post. Writ Petition No.17270 of 1995 has been dismissed on 21.1.2012 wherein it has been categorically observed that the appellant was appointed on leave vacancy for limited period and does not have vested right on the post. The said order attained finality, inasmuch as the order has not been challenged. The appellant is not able to show that when the leave vacancy become substantive on the death of Hotam Singh, the appellant has been engaged by following the proper procedure. Merely because during the pendency of Writ Petition No.17270 of 1995 when the appellant worked on the strength of the interim order, the name of the appellant has been shown in the seniority list and his name has also been recommended for regularisation, the appellant can not claim his regularisation. On the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.17270 of 1995 and the interim order being vacated, the services of the appellant has rightly been dispensed with, inasmuch as the appellant ceased his right to continue and had got no vested right to claim his engagement."
The view taken by the respondents is clearly in accord with the findings so entered. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order impugned.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)