D. S. Sinba, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to treat him as a permanently appointed lecturer. Further prayer is for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the letter of appointment dated 6th April 1988, so far as it confines the petitioner's services with effect from 24-3-1988 to 31-5-1988.
(2.) THE nature of appointment of the petitioner, as is evident from the letter of appointment dated 6th April, 1988, which was accepted by the petitioner and in pursuance whereof he joined the post, was purely temporary lasting for a period between 24th March, 1988 and 31st May, 1988. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the fact that the post on which the petitioner was appointed in temporary capacity was Of a substantive nature his appointment could not be made in temporary capacity. His appointment ought to be deemed to be of a permanent character and should be declared so. It appears that there was a vacancy of substantive nature on the post of lecturer in Agricultural Engineering at Handia Polytechnic, Handia, Allahabad, and in order to fill up that vacancy an advertisement was issued inviting applications. In pursuance of the said advertisement a regular selection was held wherein several candidates, including the petitioner, appeared. The Selection Committee recommended a panel of names for appointment on the post in question. In the panel the name of one Sri Mahendra Rai figures at Serial no.1 whereas the name of the petitioner figured at Serial no. 2. In pursuance of this selection Sri Mahendra Rai joined the post of Lecturer. Thus the panel exhausted.
(3.) LATERON Sri Mahendra Rai resigned the post as he had secured job somewhere else. On resignation of Sri Mahendra Rai a fresh vacancy arose. May be the nature of vacancy was substantive in nature but the authorities concerned chose not to fill up the post on a permanent basis instead the petitioner was offered a temporary appointment for a period between 24th March 1988 and 31st May 1985 which he joined. This temporary appointment may have been made pending regular selection which is a time-consuming process and interest of the student warranted immediate arrangement. The petitioner, having accepted the appointment as offered to him by virtue of the appointment letter dated 6th April, 1988 cannot be allowed to turn around and say that the nature of appointment was substantive and not temporary. He is estopped.;