- (1.) S.Rafat Alam, Sudhir Agarwal-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) IN the instant petition the petitioner has come up for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in his functioning as lecturer of Economics in Janta Mahavidyalaya Ranipur, Mau till regular selection is made on the recommendation of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission against the post held by him. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in Economics on ad hoc basis in the aforesaid College vide letter of appointment dated 2.1.2006 on honorarium basis with clear stipulation that he shall be allowed to continue till 30.6.2006 or till regularly selected teacher is available, whichever is earlier. The term of appointment mentioned in the letter dated 2.1.2006 is extracted hereinafter- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the college is contemplating to make fresh appointment for the post held by the petitioner by ad hoc appointment as per Government order dated 7.4.1998 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is submitted that Clause (2) of the aforesaid G.O. is arbitrary and cannot sustain as an ad hoc appointee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc appointee. It is further submitted that in a similar circumstance another Bench in the case of Writ Petition No. 23381 of 2002, Pankaj Singh v. State of U. P. and others, vide order dated 5.6.2002 issued notice and by interim order restrained fresh appointment on ad hoc basis.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The appointment of the petitioner being for a fixed tenure. He has no right to continue beyond the period indicated in the letter of appointment. From a perusal thereof it is evident that the appointment was made time bound upto 30.6.2006 or till regularly selected teacher is available whichever is earlier. Extension of the appointment by judicial order, therefore, is not permissible. Similar controversy came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Alok Kumar Singh (Dr.) and 15 others v. State of U.P. and others, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1373 : 2002 (3) AWC 1859 wherein it has been held that the petitioners cannot claim any right to continue in service beyond the period of appointment provided in the letter of appointment. Since the matter is already concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court, interim order sought to be relied by the petitioners is of no help, as this Court is bound by the law laid down in the final judgment of this Court since interim order do not lay down any binding precedent.;