ADESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE HARIDWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Alok Mehra, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) It transpires that a recruitment process was initiated in the year 2000 and, based on the written examination, a select list as well as a waiting list was prepared. The appellant stood first in the waiting list in the backward category. It transpires that the selected candidates were appointed in the vacancy that was advertised. One Manju Rani, an employee of the Civil Court Haridwar proceeded on maternity leave w.e.f. 29th November, 2000 and, consequently, against the leave vacancy, the appellant was given an appointment on 29th November, 2000 for a limited period. The appellant joined his duties and his appointment automatically came to an end upon Manju Rani joining her duties after exhausting her maternity leave.

(3.) It is alleged that upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, six employees of the Civil Court, Haridwar were sent on deputation to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. Out of six employees, one retired, as a result of which, a vacancy was created in the judgeship at Haridwar. On this vacancy, the appellant made a representation that he should be given appointment again placing his claim on the basis of being at serial no.1 of the waiting list. This representation was rejected by the authority concerned, against which, the petitioner preferred a writ petition which was dismissed by a judgment dated 9th July, 2007 against which the present special appeal has been filed.