NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is taken up and summarily disposed of. The appellant-writ petitioners were issued letters of ad-hoc appointment but they filed the writ for the purpose of continuing to work. The term of appointment on the ad-hoc basis ran out on 17th February, 2004; when they were stopped from discharging their duty, they came to Court.

(2.) We are in respectful agreement with the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Agarwal dated 12th April, 2004 where by his Lordship has held that the writ petitioners were not entitled to any relief and they had no right to hold their respective posts

(3.) We assume for the purposes of this appeal, though the Hon'ble Judge has held otherwise in the court below, that he posts were in the nature of substantive permanent vacancies. However, it is the admitted position that though the selection committee after advertisement had recommended appointments with a probationary period, the appointing authority chose quite a different procedure and issued ad-hoc letters of appointments to all the writ petitioners.