SUNAINA SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-5-1997 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1973 of 1997 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and on ad hoc basis and as such the petitioner did not have a right to the post.

(2.) IT is the case of the appellant writ petitioner that under the Scheme of Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar launched by the Government with the co-operation of the World Bank for development of the poor village children, the petitioner was appointed as an 'aanganbari Karyakarti' on temporary basis vide order dated 25-7-1996 issued by respondent No. 2, Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, (C. D. P. O.) Pardaha, District Mau. IT was clearly specified in the appointment letter that the writ petitioner- appellant would only be paid honorarium and could be terminated at any time without any notice. By the order dated 6- 1-1997 of respondent No. 2, the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, hence the petitioner challenged the said order in the aforesaid writ petition.

(3.) IN the end Dr. R. G. Padia placed before us an interim order granted by this Court in the case of some identically situated persons and submitted that the learned single Judge, instead of dismissing the writ petition, ought to have followed the same. He has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 307, wherein it has been held that it is a well- settled principle of judicial discipline that if a single Judge disagrees with the decision of another single Judge, it is proper to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative decision. IN our view, the said decision would not be of any help to the writ petitioner-appellant as there can be no parity claimed in the case of an interim order, which cannot be termed as a decision of the Court.