Markandey Katju, Dhani Ram Chaudhary, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. In this case on 21.7.1999 notices were issued to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 returnable at an early date and learned Standing Counsel was granted 6 weeks' time to file counter -affidavit. Notice was issued by the office of the Court on 6.8.1999 but it was not returned after service, and hence under Explanation 2 of Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the High Court Rules, we deem service to be sufficient. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Business Administration in the institution in question vide appointment letter dated 19.9.1998, Annexure -5 to the writ petition, and joined on 23.3.1998. This appointment was made under the G.O. dated 7.4.1998. Annexure -1 to the writ petition, which states that till regular selection by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission temporary appointment can be made by the Management on fixed amount as salary. The petitioner worked in this capacity till June, 1999, when he was prevented from working, he filed this writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner's appointment has been disapproved by the Director by order dated 17.6.1999, Annexure -9 to the writ petition. The disapproval was on the ground that the petitioner was placed lower than one Shri M.C. Jain. However, the Director did not know the factual position that Shri M.C. Jain had not given his consent for joining. In identical circumstances the Director has accorded approval to 2 persons Dr. Satnam Singh and Shri Pragya Singh by means of an order of the same date. Hence we are of the opinion that the petitioner has been discriminated against and Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The petitioner shall be permitted to function on the post till regularly selected candidate joins the post and he shall get his salary. Arrears for the period for which he has actually worked will also be paid within 3 months.;