TEJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 2nd July, 2014, learned counsel for the respondents sought one day's time for seeking instructions. Today, learned counsel for the State submits that though he has informed respondents No. 1 & 2, but no instructions have been received by him as yet.

(2.) MR . Anurag Bisaria, is not present in the Court due to his personal reasons.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the order of appointment dated 10th September, 2013, was passed by respondent No. 2 after considering the application of the petitioner and also 'No Objection Certificate' was given by the parent department of the petitioner. In the order impugned (dated 17.09.2013) no reason has been disclosed for keeping the same in abeyance. According to us, this is harassment of a person. It was always open for the respondent No. 2 not to give appointment to the petitioner on the post and reject his application, but once the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Chief Information Officer in Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, Dehradun and he joined the post, the subsequent order passed by respondent No. 2 keeping the appointment dated 10.09.2013 in abeyance, does not appear to be valid.