N. HAIDER Vs. A. S. O. C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Mata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. It is case of the petitioner that he has been engaged for the post of Lekhpal (Consolidation) way back on 8/12/1987 as a substitute and on the basis of the work and experience his services were again accepted vide order dtd. 20/3/1989 under the short term vacancy for considering the training of the petitioner and the same has been considered at the later stage.

(2.) Certain matters of the similarly situated candidates who rendered their services for more than a year for the post of Lekhpal (Consolidation) the same has been considered in pursuance to the letter dtd. 25/3/1989 issued by the Commissioner (Consolidation), in lieu of the same the services of the petitioner has been again considered under the Stop Gap Arrangement vide order dtd. 20/5/1989.

(3.) Vide order dtd. 1/5/1991, in pursuance to the order dtd. 29/4/1991, the services of the petitioner came to an end which impugned the present petition.