R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis to t post of Sahayak Wargikaran Nirikshak vide order dated 22-12-1989 and in pursuance thereof he joined the said post on 26-12-1989. In February, 1990, petitioner was required to undergo training by letter dated 12-12-1990 and in pursuance thereof, it has been stated that he has completed the training. Vide order dated 31-10-1992, service of the petitioner has been terminated under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) On 17-11-1992, learned Standing Counsel, who represent the respondents was granted three weeks time to file counter-affidavit ; but no counter was filed. On 13-1-1993, this court again granted one month and no more time to learned Standing Counsel for filing counter-affidavit. In-spite of the stop order, no counter-affidavit has been filed so far with the result the averments made in the writ petition are liable to be taken as correct.
(3.) From the perusal of the appointment letter, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-I to the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis for the period till regular selection to the post in question is made. Clause (I) of the appointment letter however, states that the services of the petitioner will be purely temporary and can be terminated at any time without any notice. Apparently there is conflict between the substantive part of the appointment letter whereby the appointment is for the period till the regularly selected candidate joins and Clause (S) thereunder the right to terminate the service at any time has been reserved. But the conflict is more apparent than real. Both the parts of the appointment letter have to be read in a harmonious manner so that what is given by the substantive part is not taken away by Clause (1). Reading thus, it is clear that by virtue of the substantive part of the appointment letter, petitioner is entitled to continue in service till the regularly selected candidate joins but his services can be terminated at any time, even before regularly selected candidate joins for a cause in accordance with law. Till such a cause is made out, his services cannot be terminated and his appointment has to continue till the regular selection is made.;