- (1.) D. R. Chaudhary, J. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has challenged the order dated 31-7-1993 of respondent No. 4 by which his appointment on the post of Junior Clerk is cancelled and reverted to his original post of Field Attendant.
(2.) IT is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was initially appointed on 31-12-1979 as Field Attendant in the office of respondent No. 4; as the petitioner's qualification was Intermediate he was required to discharge duties as Junior Clerk vide orders dated 20-7-81, 9-1-83, 18-10-86 and 30-8-88 (Annexures-3, 4, 5 and 7 respectively) passed by the competent authority; his prayer seeking regularisation of services as junior clerk was not heeded to; however, respondent No. 5 vide order dated 30-6-93 appointed the petitioner as regular junior clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500/-against the vacant post of Assistant Accountant with recital that the appointment is temporary and is liable to be terminated on joining of regularly selected Assistant Accountant; this appointment of the petitioner was made following the recommendation of respondent No. 4 as the petitioner on that point of time had worked for about 12 years as junior clerk without flaw; the impugned order was passed without affording opportunity of hearing nor any show cause notice was served before passing the impugned order. In the counter-affidavit it is admitted that the petitioner has worked as junior clerk under the orders passed from time to time by the competent authority; the petitioner was not paid salary to the post of junior clerk; the appointment of the petitioner was on local arrangement; the impugned order suffers from no illegality or vice of arbitrariness; as the appointment of the petitioner was of temporary nature he was not entitled to any opportunity of hearing; it is, however, not stated in the counter-affidavit that the regularly selected candidate has come to join the post of Assistant Accountant. The petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit reiterating the averments contained in the writ petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court vide order dated 14-9-93 stayed the operation of the impugned order till further orders. The interim order has not been vacated or modified as it appears from the record and the petitioner is still continuing on the post as junior clerk.;