D. S. Sinha, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Mahendra Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri V. N. Agarwal, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondents.
(2.) Order and judgment of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 5th January, 1990, is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order and judgment, the claim petition of the petitioner, an erstwhile class-IV employee of Tehsil Sirathu, district Allahabad, for setting aside the termination of his services, has been turned down. The Tribunal has found that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on stop-gap arrangement and his services were liable to be terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal failed to notice the provisions of Rule 9 of U. P. Regularisation of ad hoc Appointments (On posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, (hereinafter called the Rules), according to which the petitioner was entitled to regularisation of his services. Therefore, the impugned order and judgment of the Tribunal suffers from manifest error of law warranting interference of this Court.;