- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Though this peti tion is listed for admission, but as the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder af fidavits and the learned counsel for the par ties have agreed that this petition may be disposed of finally, the petitioner was heard on merit and it is being disposed of finally.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Chaukidar in the institution of the respondent No. 2 as per direction issued by the Government orders. THE second relief is also for mandamus directing the respon dents to continue the petitioner in service and regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Chaukidar. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chaukidar in the institution of respondent No. 2 on 21-3-91 on daily wages basis at the rate of Rs. 20 per day on the regular post and worked continuously till 31-8-93 but no appoint ment letter was issued to him. The petitioner was paid salary on muster roll. It is stated that there was artificial break given to the service of the petitioner so that he may not be regularised and as, the petitioner has continuously worked three years i. e. more than 240 days and he is entitled to be regularised on the post on which he was working. The allegation is that the post is still vacant but the petitioner has not been given chance to work, rather on 1-9-93 respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner for stop the duty without passing any order and the petitioner's services were terminated which is illegal. The petitioner has placed his claim on the basis of certain Government Orders which deals with that one person of the family should be given a job whose land has been acquired by the State. It is stated that the petitioner's land was acquired and in lieu there of the petitioner was given a post but subsequently he was not permitted to continue on the post. His contention is that in view of the aforesaid G. O. The petitioner is entitled to get his service again and his services should be regularised.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was never appointed on any post in the institution nor he was given any ap pointment letter. The petitioner has also not filed any appointment letter to prove that he was ever appointed. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit it is admitted that the petitioner was purely a muster roll employee, therefore, there is no question to terminate his services. It is also stated due to government decision many class IV employees have been attached to the in stitution, hence the work in the institution was not available. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit an assurance has been given that in future, when the appointment will be made due preference will be given to the petitioner admissible as per government policy. This assurance has also been reaf firmed in para 13 of the counter-affidavit in the following terms': "it is stated that since the petitioner was neither given appointment against any regular post nor any such post is lying vacant in the institu tion. He was muster roll employee and at present not a single post of class IV employee is vacant in the institution. However, in future, if any selection is being made, the petitioner will also be con sidered for his appointment on the basis of the Government policy regarding the persons whose land has been taken for the institution. " After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record I am of the view that in view of the statement made by the respondents in the counter-affidavit, quoted above, though the petitioner was a daily wage and not on a permanent vacancy, but still as assurance was given to engage the petitioner whenever the post is vacant in future, it is not neces sary to issue any mandamus at this stage. Since there is no post issuance of mandamus is of no use. However, the Court hope and trust that in view of the statement made in the counter- affidavit, quoted above, if there is any post, the petitioner's appointment shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with government policy and in accordance with law.;