JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. By an order dated 21st December, 1992 the petitioner was authorised to discharge the function of Cadre Secretary till the Cadre Secretary is appointed. On the appointment of a regular Cadre Secretary, the authorisation of the petitioner shall come to an end, for which no separate order is necessary. Mr. H. S. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on one occasion, the petitioner was sought to be replaced by ad hoc appointment but subsequently that attempt was abandoned. By virtue of the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which bears date as 5th April, 1999, it appears that one Babu Lal. Cadre Secretary working in another society has since been posted with immediate effect in the society in which the petitioner is working. In the said order, it was mentioned that consequently, the petitioner who was authorised to discharge the function of Cadre Secretary shall hold his original post of Clerk and the authorisation/charge was being recalled. This order has since been assailed by Mr. Tripathi on the ground that an ad hoc appointment cannot be replaced by another ad hoc appointment and in order to support his contention, he relied on the decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1353. He particularly relies on paragraphs 43 to 48 and 51 of the said judgment in support of his contention. He further contends that the said Babu Lal is holding charge of Cadre Secretary in four different societies. He also contends that the said Babu Lal is very influential and as such, he could obtain such appointments. Therefore, the order contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
2. Mr. O. P. Ojha, holding brief of Mr. R. N. Ojha learned counsel for respondents on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is not being replaced by ad hoc appointment. Babu Lal is a regular Cadre Secretary and he has been posted in the same society. The order of appointment itself provided that with the appointment of Cadre Secretary, authorisation of the petitioner would come to an end. Such appointment does not mean appointment by direct recruitment only. It can mean the appointment by transfer or posting of a regular Cadre Secretary as well. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner has no right to claim to continue with the authorisation. Then again, he has no legal right to hold the post. It is only a temporary authorisation, which has come to an end. It is always open to the respondent to recall such authorisation at their discretion. On these grounds he contends that the writ petition should be dismissed.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel at length.
4. From Annexure-1, dated 21st December, 1992 by which the petitioner was authorised, it appears that the petitioner was authorised to discharge the function of Cadre Secretary until a Cadre Secretary is appointed and that upon such appointment, the authorisation of the petitioner shall come to an end without requiring any passing of an independent order. Thus it appears that the petitioner was not holding the post of Cadre Secretary. He was only authorised to discharge the function of Cadre Secretary on stopgap basis until a regular Cadre Secretary is appointed. On earlier occasion, the petitioner was sought to be replaced. But the same was abandoned. But that does not mean that the respondents are not authorised to appoint any Cadre Secretary. The order contained in Annexure-4 Indicates that one Babu Lal a Cadre Secretary has since been posted with Immediate effect. He was Cadre Secretary of a different society. His posting may be either on transfer or otherwise.
5. Be that as it may, a regular Cadre Secretary has since been posted. Appointment also Includes appointment by transfer. The word "appointment' does not confine only to appointment by direct recruitment. It may include the appointment by posting or by transfer as well. In the present case, one Babu Lal a regular Cadre Secretary has since been posted. By reason of such posting.
the petitioner's authorisation automatically ceases and, therefore, it was open to the respondents to recall the authorisation. The petitioner has no legal right to continue with the authorisation or to hold the charge. The petitioner is a clerk and he cannot claim to have any right to a post unless he is promoted to the said post and regularly appointed. It is only an authorisation, which does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to continue with the authorisation for an indefinite period. He cannot claim to continue until a regularly selected candidate is appointed by recruitment.
6. Then again, he cannot question posting of a regular Cadre Secretary on the ground that the said Cadre Secretary is holding charge of Cadre Secretary in four societies. It is for the respondents to decide those questions. At the same time, it is expected that regular selection or appointment should be made. If it is a case that one Cadre Secretary is holding charge of four societies: that is a question to be decided by the respondents. The Court cannot issue any direction to that extent except expressing expectation.
7. The decision in the case of Piara Singh (supra), as cited by Mr. Tripathi docs not help in the present case since in the present case, the petitioner was not given any ad hoc appointment. He was only authorised to discharge the function of the Cadre Secretary. Then again, the appointment of Babu Lal was also not an appointment of a person holding ad hoc appointment. Admittedly, Babu Lal is a regular Cadre Secretary and he is being posted. The petitioner is not being replaced by another ad hoc appointment. Therefore, the ratio decided in the case of Piara Singh (supra) cannot help Mr. Tripathl in his contention in view of the distinguishing facts of this case.
8. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly dismissed. No cost.