M.KATJU AND UMESHWAR PANDEY, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) NONE has appeared for the respondent No. 2 although, Sri Dev Pratap Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and his name has been shown in the cause list. The facts of the case have been set out in the order dated 26.10.1999 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. It appears that the respondent No. 2 was appointed on the post of Clerk -cum -typist on daily wages basis w.e.f, 12.9.1994 in the service of the petitioner, Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, Mathura. As stated in Para 3 of the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 Km. Anju Rani submitted an application dated 26.12.1995 to the Secretary/Vice Chairman of the Development Authority seeking appointment to the post of Clerk. Without any advertisement or selection and merely on the aforesaid application submitted to the petitioner, an order dated 30.12.1995 was issued by the Secretary of the petitioner (copy of this is Annexure -2 to the writ petition). A perusal of the order shows that it gives appointment to the respondent No. 2 only for three months on ad hoc basis. The order further states that the appointment is purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without any notice.
(3.) THE aforesaid order of appointment was only for a period of three months on purely ad hoc basis and would have expired on 31.3.1996. However, the respondent No. 2 was allowed to continue for further three months periods on several occasions as stated in Paras 5 and 6 to the writ petition. The last appointment of three months expired on 30.6.1998 and in the absence of any further grant of extension the petitioner was not permitted to work from 1.7.1998. Hence, the respondent No. 2 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal copy of which is Annexure -4 to the writ petition. Petitioner filed a reply copy of which is Annexure -5 and rejoinder -affidavit was also filed by Km. Anju Rani, copy of which is Annexure -6 to the writ petition.;