PREM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are seeking a mandamus commanding the Respondents to allow them to continue in service and regularise them.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that though they have continued pursuant to interim order dated 28.6.1993 passed by this Court yet since subsequently Regularisation Rules have been framed and they are entitled to be considered for regularisation there under hence their continuous service till date is liable to be taken into consideration to consider whether they have a right for regularisation or not.

(3.) The submission is thoroughly misconceived. Admittedly, the Petitioners were disengaged from their daily wage muster role employment by means of the impugned order. Counsel for the Petitioners could not make any submission to assail the said order of termination. The order of termination was made ineffective by means of the interim order passed by this Court. Meaning thereby continuance of Petitioners in service is not based on their own rights but pursuant to this Court's order. The law is well settled in this regard that act of Court shall prejudice none and anything which has been done pursuant to interim, order shall depend on the final result of the writ petition. In case the writ petition fails it will result as if no interim order was ever passed. This issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in Smt. Vijay Rani v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Region-1, Meerut and Ors., 2007 2 ESC 987 and the Court held as under: