R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD parties finally.
(2.) PETITIONER has prayed for quashing the office order No. 36 (Annexure 2) issued by respondent No. 2 by which his appointment letter was cancelled on the ground that the appointment was irregular. Mr. Verma, appearing for petitioner, submitted that the petitioner applied pursuant to an advertisement against the post of 'Typist (Headquarter)' and he was selected; and accordingly appointment letter was issued on 23.12.1997 appointing him, though temporarily. As he was working as daily wager in Jawan Bhawan, Ranchi, he requested for relieving him which was allowed and he gave his joining on 9.2.1998 before the respondent No. 2. When the salary was not paid, petitioner filed writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2519 of 1998 which was disposed of on 11.2.1999. The respondents in the counter affidavit raised plea in the said writ petition that appointment of petitioner was not made in accordance with law and he never performed his duty at the place where he was posted and therefore, salary was not paid. This Court passed the following order: After hearing the parties, as I find that the respondents have not yet come out with any order of termination in respect of petitioner on the ground of illegal appointment, according to this Court, the authorities cannot withhold the salary of the petitioner on the ground of illegal appointment till he remans in service. The dispute with regard to the performance of duty being disputed question of fact, petitioner was given liberty to approach the respondent No. 2 bringing to his notice the relevant evidences to show that he was posted against one or other post and performed duties during one or other period and the respondent No. 2 was to enquire and if it was found that petitioner was posted against one or other post and performed duty, he was to be paid the ad mitied salary for the period he actually worked. It was observed that however the said order will not stand in the way of respondents to pass any order in accordance with law. It is submitted by Mr. Verma that on the basis of the said observations, the appointment letter of the petitioner has been cancelled, on irrelevant grounds.
(3.) THE counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order.;