- (1.) PALOK Basu, R. K. Mahajan, JJ. The petitioner Pramod Kumar Singh has filed this writ petition with the prayer that a certiorari writ may issue quashing the order dated 24-5-1996 passed by the opposite party whereby the representation of the petitioner stands rejected for various reasons set out thereon.
(2.) SRI R. D. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at substantial length on the last working day as well as today. During the last hearing a controver sy arose whether the petitioner has filed the present writ petition being only second one in the series or whether he had already preferred some other writ petitions at Al lahabad. Counter affidavit was called from the learned Addl. Advocate General who has opposed this writ petition. A statement has been made at the Bar by the learned Addl. Advocate General Sri O. K. Mehrotra that there are three Pramod Kumar Singh whose cases were being considered. Conse quently, he has said that the present petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the second time only, first one being writ petition No. 938 (S/s) of 1995 in which he had joined as the second petitioner filed by four petitioners which has been disposed of by this Court on 29-3-1995 by learned Single Judge asking the respondent to dispose of the representation of those four petitioners. Copy of the said order dated 29-3-1995 has already been filed by the petitioner here as Annexure-2 to the instant writ petition. Hence the counter has not been filed. From a perusal of the order of this Court dated 24-5-1996 it is apparent that the representation of the petitioner was asked to be decided by the respondent and this is how the impugned order dated 24-5- 1996 has come to be passed. Translated into English the order would indicate that docu ments filed by the petitioner along with his representation which were supposed to have been issued to the petitioner by Dr. Shivraj Singh, the then Director of Ayurved Department, indicate that the petitioner was only permitted to be in the department, but no appointment was made. The record of the Directorate has been examined up-to-date which do not indicate even a semblance of the documents which the petitioner uleges to have been issued to him. It is ob vious, therefore, that the documents which the petitioner relies upon have not been issued to him by the Directorate. The petitioner's requirement even in the depart ment does not exist. The representation was consequently rejected.
(3.) IT is obvious from the pleadings of the petitioner that he claims to be a daily wager. IT is known that even a daily wager in any department can only be appointed or asked to work under certain rules and against sanctioned post. No such rule has been indicated by the petitioner which may have permitted him to work. IT is admitted to the petitioner that there is no appoint ment letter in his favour and it has not been pleaded that there was any sanctioned post that is exactly why he pleaded that the petitioner was working as a daily wager, which, as noted above, is not supportable by any rule. IT may be mentioned that no back door entry is permissible in a clandestine manner. The Government Offices must ad here to the Rules of selection and only then a right to be retained on that basis may accrue. If there was no post there was no interference in rights created lawfully. As noted above, the petitioner has miserably failed to indicate any right whatever to gain any post in the office of the respondent.;