- (1.) Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
(2.) Shri Khare contends that the petitioner has been continuing for more than a decade on ad hoc basis on a short term vacancy and is now sought to be discontinued on the ground that the vacancy has now been converted into a substantive vacancy on 31.06.2008. He contends that, as a matter of fact, no purpose would be served by disengaging the petitioner, inasmuch as, till regular selection is made an ad hoc appointment and engagement will have to be made in the interest of the institution. He contends that by disengaging the petitioner it is the students and the institution which will be put to a disadvantage and therebeing no source of any alternative arrangement it would be appropriate that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on ad hoc basis till fresh selections are held either on ad hoc basis or on permanent basis. Shri Khare relies on the decision in the case of District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and Ors. v. Diwakar Lal and Ors., 2000 3 ESC 1670.
(3.) Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that such contingency cannot be continued, inasmuch as, the vacancy has been converted into a substantive vacancy. There is no occasion for the petitioner to continue and the arguments advanced have already been considered by the another Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that for no reason whatever a person working on a short term vacancy can be continued after a vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy. He has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2007 1 ESC 118.;