Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11,6,1993, Annexure-13 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 1 and a writ of mandamus not to interfere in the working of the petitioner on the post of driver. The petitioner was appointed as jeep driver in Class-III to a temporary post on ad hoc basis and the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time. Subsequently it was found that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law by following the proper procedure, therefore, a show cause notice was given and a reply to that effect was invited from the petitioner and the same was considered and an order dated 11.6.1993 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner only on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was without following the proper procedure and the name of the petitioner was not sponsored from Employment Exchange. Copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court and the writ petition was entertained and an interim order was granted on 17.8.1993 and subsequently on an application, the interim order was extended vide its order dated 29.11.1993. The petitioner submits that the interim order is still continuing and on the basis of the interim order the petitioner is continuing on his post.
(2.) An argument on behalf of the petitioner has been raised to the effect that in view of Annexure-14, U.P. Regularisation of ad-hoc Appointments (On the Post Outside the Purview of The Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, the petitioner was entitled to be considered according to cut-off date mentioned. The petitioner has further placed reliance on the G.O. dated 22.3.1984 and 7.8.1989 and has placed reliance on Rule 10 of the said Rules. The petitioner submits that as his appointment was prior to 1.10.1986 and he was continuing in service on the date of the commencement of the Government Order dated 7.6.1989, therefore, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for regularization as the respondents without taking into consideration the relevant Rules, have terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that his initial appointment on ad hoc was not in accordance with law. The petitioner further submits that in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 29, if a person is working for a considerable time on the basis of the interim order, a sympathetic consideration would be taken and the claim of person concerned, inspite of the fact that the initial appointment is not in accordance with law, may be considered for regularization or may be permitted to continue on the post.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.;