S. Rafat Alam, Sudhir Agarwal, JJ. - (1.) This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 1.8.2002 dismissing petitioner-appellant's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12701 of 1999.
(2.) We have heard Mr. Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.N. Ojha, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. C.B. Yadav, Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhinav Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
(3.) The undisputed facts, giving rise to this appeal are that the petitioner-appellant was engaged as Assistant Accountant on contract basis for a period of one year from the date of taking over charge in Hamirpur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited vide order dated 26.11.1994. The terms and conditions of appointment clearly stipulated that the appointment would automatically come to end on expiry of one year, and, even otherwise is wholly temporary liable to be terminated at any time by giving a month's notice. It appears that the petitioner-appellant joined the post on 1.12.1994 and worked at Hamirpur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Sumerpur till 31.3.1998. Subsequently, recruitment to Class-Ill post was made by the respondents vide advertisement dated 5.8.1998 as per the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Procedure of Direct Recruitment for Group-C Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as '1998 Rules'). The petitioner-appellant applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement claiming himself to be a "retrenched employee". Written examination was held on 13^th December, 1998, wherein he was found successful. Thereafter interview was held and ultimately vide appointment letter dated 25.2.1999, the petitioner-appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant Accountant under General Category giving him benefit of "Retrenched Employee". Subsequently, it was noticed that the appellant was not a "Retrenched Employee" in accordance with the definition of the "Retrenched Employee" contained in the Rules and consequently vide order dated 24.3.1999, his appointment was cancelled. Aggrieved, appellant preferred the aforesaid writ petition which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge vide judgment under appeal.;