MUDIT MITTAL Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2008-8-351
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 05,2008

Mudit Mittal Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

PRADEEP KANT, ABHINAVA UPADHYA, JJ. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. With the consent of the parties Counsel the petition is being disposed of finally.
(2.) SRI O.P. Srivastava appearing for the petitioner says that the appointment of the petitioner as ad-hoc Government Counsel, D.G.C., A.D.G.C. etc., has not been extended and the assignment has been terminated in some cases without giving any reason and in rest of the cases on the ground that because of scarcity of work, there is no need of ad-hoc appointees. Submission is that these persons have a light to continue till fresh appointment or engagement on the post is made and they are also entitled for being considered for renewal of their term.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel, says that the petitioner is ad-hoc appointee and he does not have any right to hold the post, therefore, his case cannot be considered for renewal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.