D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) By an order dated 21st December, 1992 the petitioner was authorised to discharge the function of Cadre Secretary till the Cadre Secretary is appointed. On the appointment of a regular Cadre Secretary, the authorisation of the petitioner shall come to an end, for which no separate order is necessary. Mr. H. S. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on one occasion, the petitioner was sought to be replaced by ad hoc appointment but subsequently that attempt was abandoned. By virtue of the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which bears date as 5th April, 1999, it appears that one Babu Lal. Cadre Secretary working in another society has since been posted with immediate effect in the society in which the petitioner is working. In the said order, it was mentioned that consequently, the petitioner who was authorised to discharge the function of Cadre Secretary shall hold his original post of Clerk and the authorisation/charge was being recalled. This order has since been assailed by Mr. Tripathi on the ground that an ad hoc appointment cannot be replaced by another ad hoc appointment and in order to support his contention, he relied on the decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1353. He particularly relies on paragraphs 43 to 48 and 51 of the said judgment in support of his contention. He further contends that the said Babu Lal is holding charge of Cadre Secretary in four different societies. He also contends that the said Babu Lal is very influential and as such, he could obtain such appointments. Therefore, the order contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
(2.) Mr. O. P. Ojha, holding brief of Mr. R. N. Ojha learned counsel for respondents on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is not being replaced by ad hoc appointment. Babu Lal is a regular Cadre Secretary and he has been posted in the same society. The order of appointment itself provided that with the appointment of Cadre Secretary, authorisation of the petitioner would come to an end. Such appointment does not mean appointment by direct recruitment only. It can mean the appointment by transfer or posting of a regular Cadre Secretary as well. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner has no right to claim to continue with the authorisation. Then again, he has no legal right to hold the post. It is only a temporary authorisation, which has come to an end. It is always open to the respondent to recall such authorisation at their discretion. On these grounds he contends that the writ petition should be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel at length.;