Barin Ghosh, C.J. -
(1.) Doon Valley Special Area Development Authority, respondent No.2 herein, was established under the Uttar Pradesh Special Area Development Authorities Act, 1986 as a body corporate. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, the State Government was competent to appoint Secretary and Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority. The State Government has also supervisory power over the Authority and can issue any direction to the Authority from time to time. The Authority is competent to give appointment to the other posts created in the Authority. Two posts of Junior Engineer and one post of Draughtsman were created in the Authority. On 15th July, 1989, appellant was engaged against one such post of Junior Engineer on daily wage basis. On 10th December, 1991, appellant was appointed on the post of Draughtsman. On 4th November, 1996, the Authority made a request to the State Government to permit it to appoint the appellant, then working on the post of Draughtsman as a Junior Engineer, against one of the sanctioned posts of Junior Engineer. Subsequent thereto, on 8th February, 2002, appellant approached the State Government for implementing the request made by the Authority to the State Government. This was acceded to and, by an order dated 6th April, 2002, appellant was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer with effect from 20th July, 1989. The order dated 6th April, 2002 was passed by the Government. Later on, the Government passed an order dated 24th June, 2003 and, thereby, cancelled the said appointment of the appellant. This order dated 24th June, 2003 was assailed by the appellant by filing a writ petition. The writ petition has been dealt with by the judgment and order under appeal dated 15th July, 2013. By the order under appeal, the order of the Government dated 24th June, 2003 as well as the order of the Government dated 6th April, 2002 have been set aside. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us.
(2.) In preferring the appeal, there has been 19 days delay and, accordingly, an application for condonation of delay has been filed. That is not being objected. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and being satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons furnished for the delay, allow the application.
(3.) Heard counsel for the parties. The principal ground to resist the writ petition was that Centralised Service Rules, 1985 applied. There is a specific finding by the learned Judge that the same did not apply, inasmuch as, the said Act does not speak about application of Centralised Service Rules and, though under the said Act, there is provision for making Rules, but no Rules have been made. The learned Judge, therefore, concluded that there being no dispute that two posts of Junior Engineers were created, the Authority was competent to appoint the appellant in one of those posts. The learned Judge, however, set aside the order of the appointment dated 6th April, 2002 principally on the ground that the same was passed by the State Government and not by the Authority. We are of the view that the letter of the Authority dated 4th November, 1996 is a clear indication, whereby and under, the Authority held out to the Government that it wants to appoint the appellant on the post of Junior Engineer and if he is not appointed as such, the Authority will face great difficulty in discharge of its duties. In the circumstances, there is clear cut decision on the part of the Authority to appoint the appellant to the post of Junior Engineer. The Authority, in order to get its said decision vetted by the State Government, requested the State Government and the State Government accepted the request made by the Authority to appoint the appellant as a Junior Engineer for discharge of the duties of the Authority and accorded such appointment to the appellant by the order dated 6th April, 2002. The reason for recalling the said order dated 6th April, 2002 by the order dated 24th June, 2003 was that Junior Engineers to be appointed in the Authority could only be appointed by selection through the Public Service Commission. As aforesaid, the said Act does not provide for the same. Rules have not been framed. Centralised Service Rules are not applicable. In those circumstances, the reason for interfering with the said order of appointment dated 6th April, 2002 by the order dated 24th June, 2003 is not sustainable.;