Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The respondent was appointed in 1983 as an Instructor on a temporary basis by the appellant. Between 19th May, 1986 to 16th June, 1986, the respondent failed to turn up for duty. According to the respondent this was because of communal clashes which had broken out in the respondents village. According to the appellant, the respondent had merely absconded because of a complaint filed by one of the ladies working in the appellants units against the respondent. Whatever the truth, the fact remains that when, after the period of absence, the respondent sought to rejoin his duties, he was not allowed to do so by the appellant.
(3.) The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court at Madras on 16th September, 1986 in which he claimed inter alia that he had been wrongfully refused employment by the appellant when he sought to rejoin. By way of interim relief, he prayed that he should be permitted to continue to work on the same terms and conditions. The substantive prayer in the writ petition was for a direction on the appellant to regularise the respondents service. The writ petition which was contested by the appellant, was dismissed by an order dated 1st December, 1986. However, since 18 posts for permanent Instructors had been advertised, leave was granted to the respondent to approach the appellant for appointment on the basis of his earlier temporary service.;