MOHD IMRAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The factual matrix of this case as set out in the writ petition as well as the special appeal in short compass, appears to be is that on 23rd March, 1996, the appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department. Faizabad. against a clear temporary vacancy but subsequently on 3.6.96 after the appellant joined the service, the conditions were altered and the appellant was shown to be appointed as stop-gap arrangement in the vacancy which accrued due to suspension of one Maharana Pratap Singh. On the reinstatement of Maharana Pratap Singh, the appellant was disengaged from the service on the basis of the impugned order dated 8.8.96. The appellant's representation against the dismissal was turned down by the Director, Social Welfare Department on December 23. 1996. The appellant thereafter approached the Chief Minister for the redressal of his grievance, a copy of which was also endorsed to the Principal Secretary. Social Welfare Department on which the comments were called for by the Director. Social Welfare Department, but no final decision was taken till the date of the decision in the writ petition bearing No. 580 (S/S) of 1998 which was preferred by the appellant assailing the order of his disengagement/termination from service.

(2.) Before Hon'ble the single Judge, it was submitted that the appellant was appointed against a clear vacancy, therefore, unilateral change in his service conditions by showing his appointment as a sort of stop-gap arrangement was unsustainable. But the contention of the appellant was repelled by the opposite parties mainly on the ground that the Deputy Director. Social Welfare Department was not the appointing authority because the power to make all appointments may be temporary, ad hoc and fortuitous in nature could be passed by the Director of the Department only in accordance with Service Rules. 1991.

(3.) Hon'ble the single Judge was of the view that as the appointment Itself originated from an unauthorised person, therefore, the appellant cannot be heard complaining against his Impugned disengagement or change in the service conditions. After all the very concept of the service means, a service lawfully obtained from a legally authorised authority. Hon'ble the single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition on 4.12.98. Being aggrieved against the said order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge, the appellant has filed the present special appeal.