D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed by virtue of resolution dated 12.1.1997 for a period of 89 days purely on ad hoc basis or till the regularly selected candidate joins whichever is earlier. There was another resolution dated 15.3.1997 whereby the petitioner's service was extended after 1989 till regularization. On the basis of this resolution, the petitioner alleges to be continuing in service. The petitioner further contends that by an order dated 26.4.1997 the petitioner's tenure was extended till regularization. Subsequently the petitioner was transferred from one place to another by an order dated 6.6.1997 which was also amended subsequently by an order dated 17.6.1997. He further contends after his transfer, his salary having been stopped, the petitioner has made a representation which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition. On the basis of such representation, as contended in para 34 of the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 had granted sanction by his letter No. 273, dated 12.2.1999 which has since been denied by respondent No. 3, in these circumstances, the petitioner had prayed mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner's arrear from March, 1998 till March, 1999, as well as mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's functioning and for regularization.
(2.) Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was never appointed as against any post, therefore, he cannot claim any legal right to establish his right through the writ jurisdiction. He further contends that since the petitioner's appointment was for a limited period, by virtue whereof, he cannot be said to have secured any legal right on the post as has been held in the several decisions of the Apex Court. He further contends that the subsequent extensions were all de hors the rule and the petitioner having been engaged de hors the rule he cannot establish his right through writ Jurisdiction. He further contends that there were several appointments made de hors the rule for which the respondents had taken a decision to dispense with all such irregular and illegal appointments which are innumerable, therefore, appropriate and adequate decision had been taken. He further contends that there was no sanction for payment of salary after March. 1998, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any salary and right to continue after March. 1998, when there having been no sanction for payment of salary after March. 1998. On these grounds, relying on various decisions on Identical issue to which reference would be made hereinafter. Mr. Mandhyan contends that the instant writ petition should also be dismissed.
(3.) Shrl Pradeep Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the petitioners services have not been terminated either by oral order or by written order, therefore, all these grounds made by Shrl Mandhyan, cannot be sustained.;