SANJEEV KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned sanding counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as Lecturer in Agricultural (Chemistry) in Narayan Post Graduate College, Sikohabad and he has prayed that he should be allowed to continue in service. Petitioner's appointment letter dated 8.1.2002 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The appointment letter itself states that the petitioner will continue in service till 30th June, 2002 or till the regularly selected candidate selected by the Commission joins the post, whichever is earlier. Hence according to the appointment letter itself, he cannot continue in service beyond 30.6.2002.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11377 of 1999, Dr. Beena Kumar and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors., decided on 20.4.1999, copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. We are of the opinion that the said decision is distinguishable and was confined to the facts of that particular case. That decision has not laid down any legal proposition that even if the appointment letter states that the petitioner will continue in service till 30th June, 2002 or till the regularly selected candidate selected by the Commission joins the post, whichever is earlier, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service beyond 30.6.2002.