(1.) The undisputed facts relevant for the purpose of deciding controversy in the present writ petition are as follows : Sayed Mohammad Mahfooz, the petitioner had worked as Assistant Accountant from 1.12.1994 to 31.3.1998 in Hamirpur, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, called the Sahkari Sangh vide appointment letter dated November 26, 1994/Annexure 2 to the petition in connection with Central Sector Yojana for one year on contract basis at a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The appointment letter also categorically mentioned that appointment was to come to an end automatically after expiry of one year the appointment was absolutely temporary and services were liable to be determined any time on one month' notice; petitioner has filed certificate, in proof of the fact that he did work as Assistant Account in the said Sahkari Sangh w.e.f., 1.12.1994 to 31.3.1998; the petitioner admittedly worked as an employee of the said Sahkari Sangh up to 31.3.1998/Annexure 3 to the writ petition; petitioner also filed certificate dated 26.5.1998/Annexure 4 to the writ petition issued by the Manager of the Sahkari Sangh indicating his period of working as aforementioned in the Sahkari Sangh and further adding that petitioner was a "Retrenched Employee"; initially an advertisement was issued on 3.11.1997 providing certain age restrictions with reference to the cut of date as 1.7.1997; petitioner applied within the prescribed age limit; the selection process was not finalised due to certain orders/directions from the State Government; another advertisement dated 5.8.1998 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) in Daily News Paper 'Dainik Jagran, Kanpur' for making appointment on Group 'C posts (out side the purview of the UP Public Service Commission) was issued under the Authority of Secretary Appointment and Personnel Department, U.P. Government; the petitioner again applied in pursuance to the said advertisement also; the said advertisement prescribed 1.7.1997 as the cut of date for computing age limit; petitioner was admittedly 8 months overage; the petitioner was, however, not overage if the period between the first advertisement and the second advertisement was excluded; the petitioner was however, called for written examination held on 13.12.1998. The petitioner appeared and declared successful in the written examination and after interview he was selected finally treating his application, as per information contained in the application itself; as a "Retrenched Employee" the petitioner was selected in the merit for appointment on the post of Assistant Accountant under general category; a letter of appointment dated 25.2.1999/Atmexure 5 to the writ petition was issued; petitioner went to report on duty and join the post on 27.2.1999 but the Principal of the concerned Government College did not permit him to join the duties.
(2.) Being aggrieved the petitioner filed present writ petition before this Court making payer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as Assistant Account in Government Post Graduate College, Hamirpur and pay the petitioner his regular monthly salary on the said post, regularly every month and other ancillary reliefs.
(3.) It will be noted that present writ petition was filed on 30.3.1999. In the meanwhile the concerned authority had passed order cancelling appointment/ selection of the petitioner vide order dated 24.3.1999 (which according; to the petitioner was received by him on 30.3.1999). Consequently, petitioner filed an Amendment Application supported by an affidavit sworn by Sayed Mohammad Mahfooz on 9.4.1999. The Amendment Application was presented in the Court on 16.9.1999 and allowed on 31.8.2001. Petitioner also added grounds for assailing/impugning said order of cancellation dated 24.3.1999 (Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application and also as Annexure C.A. 7 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3).