SOBAT SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant special appeal learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7.12.2009 disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 641 of 2008.

(2.) THROUGH the aforesaid writ petition the appellant had assailed the order passed on 25.05.1993 whereby his services had been dispensed with. The aforesaid order was considered to have been justifiably passed by the learned Single Judge under Rule 3 of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.

(3.) WHILE examining the claim of the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid Rule, the learned Single Judge had expressly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant having not been appointed on a substantive vacancy could not claim the benefit of Rule 14. On a perusal of Rule 14 extracted here above, we are satisfied that the same is applicable only to persons appointed against the substantive vacancy. In order to demonstrate that the appellant was appointed against a substantive vacancy, learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the averments made in paragraph 2 of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 641 of 2008. The same is also being extracted hereunder.