- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Collection Peon and his services was dispensed with by an order dated 30th November, 1998. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the ground that being a temporary Collection Peon, he was not entitled for any relief. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge preferred a Special Appeal No. 740 of 1999. During the pendency of the Special Appeal, the petitioner was promoted as a Collection Amin by an order dated 5th October, 2009 under the relevant Rules by a committee appointed for that purpose. When the Special Appeal came up for hearing this fact was brought to the notice of the Division Bench and, in the light of the fact that the petitioner had been promoted as a Collection Amin, the Special Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 15th April, 2011.
(2.) By an order dated 25th February, 2011, the service of the petitioner as a Collection Amin has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner's Special Appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) The promotion of the petitioner from the post of temporary Collection Peon to the post of Collection Amin was not subject to the result of the Special Appeal. The promotion to the post of Collection Amin was made under the relevant Rules by the Selection Committee on the basis of the vacancies available on the post of Collection Amin and on the basis of the work which he was performing. The fact that the petitioner got promoted was not hedged by any condition, namely, that his promotion would be subject to the result of the Special Appeal. In the absence of any condition, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Special Appellate Court was rightly accepted and Special Appeal having become infructuous was rightly dismissed as withdrawn. The respondents cannot take advantage of that situation and dismiss the services of the petitioner on that score. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.;