- (1.) This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2014, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36613 of 1998, whereby writ court has dismissed the writ petition.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and have perused the records.
(3.) The petitioner appellant was appointed on the post of Peon on daily wages in the Office of District Election Officer, Ballia from 21.05.1988 to 15.07.1988. Again he was given a temporary post of Peon in the same office from 02.11.1988 to 15.12.1988. Once again he was given a temporary post of Junior Clerk in the same office from 23.09.1989 to 31.12.1989. On 26.03.1990 the said appointment of the petitioner appellant was cancelled. The petitioner appellant moved a representation to the effect that he being a retrenched employee, he be absorbed in the services, which was rejected by the authority concerned vide order dated 27.11.1997 on the ground that there is no provision for recruiting the retrenched employees directly to any post by absorbing them to such post and in absence of any such provision or any government order, the petitioner appellant cannot be absorbed on any post in Census Department. The aforesaid order dated 27.11.1997 was challenged by the petitioner appellant by way of writ petition no.36613 of 1998 , which was dismissed by the writ court by the order reproduced below, which has been impugned in this appeal:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Petitioner herein, was engaged as a temporary peon for short period in the District Census Office, when the exercise for census was undertaken. He was appointed as clerk but the said appointment was cancelled vide order dated 26.3.1990, and he was reverted to the post of Peon on the same terms, on which he was working. His claim for absorption was rejected vide order dated 27.11.1997 on the ground that he was claiming absorption on the post of clerk, whereas there was no such provision. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 26.3.1990, reverting him to the post of Peon. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has continued to work on the post of peon whether in temporary or in other capacity after 1996. There is already a stipulation in the order dated 27.11.1997 that his case would be considered as per rules, if permissible. I do not find any valid ground for granting any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.";