D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) Mr. P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16-7-1997 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner's services have been terminated. According to him, the order impugned could not have been passed without notice to the petitioner or notice pay in lieu thereof. The learned counsel further contends that the impugned order has been issued without application of mind by reason of the order dated 11-7-1997 which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Next contention raised by the learned counsel is that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of transfer of respondent no. 3, who happens to be a Sewika. According to him, Sewika cannot be posted as Mali, a post held by the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as Mali against permanent vacancy, therefore, his services cannot be terminated in the manner it has been done.
(2.) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, contends that from the material on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed against a permanent vacancy. The petitioner's appointment appears to have been made temporarily as leave arrangement for limited period, therefore the petitioner cannot claim that he has acquired a legal right on the basis thereof.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court desired learned Standing counsel to file counter affidavit, but on the basis of contentions raised and the materials produced, the court was not inclined to grant interim order. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the matter may be heard and disposed of finally have and now. Accordingly, the matter was heard and is being decided finally.;