Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard Sri Yogish Kumar Saxena, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shree Prakash Singh, standing counsel.
(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that he was appointed on ad hoc basis as Junior Clerk in the office of Bal Vikash Pariyojana Adhikari, Farrukhabad respondent No. 3, vide letter of appointment dated 25.7.1987 appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. His appointment was conditional till selection of regularly selected candidate. It appears from letter dated 3.4.1987, appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, that some recommendation was made by Bal Vikash Pariyojana Adhikari, Tirua, District Farrukhabad for regularization of the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk. However, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 20.6.1987, enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition on the ground that he was an ad hoc employee and his services were no longer required. Aggrieved by the order of his termination, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 12234 of 1987, in which an ad-interim order dated 14.7.1987 was passed in his favour.
(3.) ON the basis of averments made in the counter-affidavit in that case stating that one Sri S. K . Katiyar, a regularly selected candidate, had already joined the post on 25.6.l987, the writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 1.2.1989 with the observations that if the post which the petitioner was holding was still vacant, his case may be considered for appointment on ad hoc basis till joining of regularly selected candidate. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when petitioner came to know that aforesaid Sri S. K. Katiyar had only worked for nine days ; whose services had been terminated vide order dated 15.9.1987, appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition and that Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, another person was appointed in his place on ad hoc basis vide order dated 10.10.1987, appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. He filed this writ petition in September, 1992.;