- (1.) THOUGH the State has filed the special appeal with a delay of about 10 months but counsel for the respondent has no objection in case the delay is condoned. We also find the ground sufficient. The delay in moving the special appeal is condoned.
(2.) SRI Vivek Shukla appearing for the State, assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, submits that the very appointment of the respondent since was not made in accordance with law/rules, therefore, no weightage could have been given to him for his working under the interim orders passed by this Court nor the writ petition could have been allowed. In support of his plea, he submits that, in fact, appointment of the respondent was made by the officiating Deputy Director and no approval was taken by the Director, which was the requirement under the Government order dated 6.2.1984. The respondent was appointed in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Deputy Director on 8.5.1986, published in local newspaper. He applied for the post of Mombatti Prashikshak and after interview, he was selected for the said post. The appointment order was issued by the Deputy Director aforesaid and in pursuance thereof, he joined services on 24.5.1986. His services were terminated by an order dated 25.2.1987 issued by the Deputy Director, saying that the appointment of the respondent has been declared to be irregular and illegal in the D.O. letter dated 9.2.1987 issued by the Director and, therefore, his services are being terminated.
(3.) IT is not being disputed by the appellant-State that the appointing authority of the respondent was Deputy Director. The only plea which has been taken is that the officer who appointed him was actually officiating as Deputy Director. The Government order dated 6.2.1984 only required for sending the information after interview to the Director, i.e. subsequent concurrence of the Director was required.;