Anjani Kumar - (1.) -This writ petition was dismissed by me vide my order dated 13th August, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs : "(i) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.12.1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 (as Annexure-6 to this petition). (ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give effect the order dated 1.12.1995 and the petitioner may be given joining on the post of Sweeper/Cum Chaukidar, Naveen Primary Health Centre, Balrampur, Allahabad in pursuance of appointment letter dated 1.12.1995 by the respondent No. 1. (iii) other writ, order or direction, which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award costs of the petition to the petitioner : (a) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/letter dated 24.2.1996 as Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit and Annexure-7 to the writ petition. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to invite the petitioner to join his duties and pay the full salary and allowance to petitioner as provided under law." As would be clear from the relief claimed by the petitioner, originally the petition was filed for quashing of the order dated 23.12.1995. This Court vide its order dated 19.2.1996 passed the following interim order : "Standing counsel prays for and is granted six weeks time to file counter-affidavit. List for admission thereafter. Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad shall, in the meantime, look into the matter and take appropriate decision thereon in the context of the letter dated 23.12.1995 within a month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the Chief Medical Officer within 10 days." By way of subsequent amendment, it has been brought on record that in pursuance of the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court, the respondent Chief Medical Officer has rejected the petitioner's claim by order dated 24th February, 1996, a copy of which is appended as Annexure-C.A. 1. It is this order, which is now being challenged by the petitioner. The admitted case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for work of cleaning at Naveen Primary Health Centre, Allahabad on consolidated amount of Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand) per month. Petitioner has annexed an integrity certificate issued by the In-charge Medical Officer, Naveen Primary Health Centre that during the period when the petitioner has worked under the aforesaid In-charge Medical Officer, his work and conduct was found satisfactory and that petitioner is in fact entitled for appointment as a regular employee. In view of the aforesaid certificate and the case set up by the petitioner, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has never been appointed as a regular employee. It is only for the first time that by the order dated 1.12.1995 petitioner has been appointed as sweeper cum chaukidar on ad hoc basis in the aforestated health centre in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 with the condition that this ad hoc appointment is purely temporary and can be terminated at any time without giving any notice and petitioner would be entitled for temporary/permanent appointment in future only if he is selected by the selection committee. This order was passed by Chief Medical Officer, as stated above, on 1.12.1995 on the eve of his transfer. The subsequent incumbent has passed the order dated 23.12.1995, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, by which the execution of all the orders of appointment made by the predecessor of the Chief Medical Officer have been stayed in public interest so that the validity or otherwise of the order can be judged.
(3.) IT is with these allegations that the writ petition was filed when this Court was pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to look into the matter and pass a reasoned order, which, according to the petitioner, has now been passed, a copy of the im-pugned order is annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit of G. D. Barnwal, Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad. The order of appointment of the petitioner dated 1.12.1995, ap-pointing the petitioner as ad hoc sweeper/chaukidar at Naveen Primary Health Centre, Allahabad, was can-celled because the petitioner has not joined during the specified period mentioned in the order of appointment. The petitioner has denied the aforesaid assertion mentioned in the order annexed along with the counter-affidavit and learned standing counsel tries to make out a case that it is in-correct to say that the petitioner did not join during the period allowed to him for joining in the letter of ap-pointment dated 1.12.1995. A perusal of the letter of appointment dated 1.12.1995, clearly specifies that the petitioner has to join within a week of receipt of the order. The petitioner's case is that when the petitioner has received the order, he has joined within a week itself, but because of the order passed by the subsequent Chief Medical Officer, he was not allowed to function. It is categorically stated that the petitioner has not joined and the reason assigned is that the outgoing Chief Medical Officer in fact passed the aforesaid order in back date and the petitioner who was already working there, as stated above, on ad hoc basis continued to work at there and had not joined within time as specified in the order and in this view of the matter, the order of appointment was set aside and the petitioner's services have been terminated. However, the petitioner was working on consolidated salary of Rs. 1,000 per month. In this view of the matter, the controversy raised in the present writ petition is a serious dispute of fact and it is settled that this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the disputed questions of fact. This writ petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;