MOHAN SINGH BAIS GHANSHYAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P THE JOINT SECRETARY U P ADMINISTRATION AND NAGAR MAHA PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions have been filed by Shri Mohan Singh Bais. Writ Petition No. 9798 of 1998 has been filed for quashing the orders dated 03.05.1986 and 12.05.1986, by which the post of Sports Officer had been abolished and the petitioner had been reverted to his original post and Writ Petition No. 15100 of 1999 has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Sports Officer.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had been appointed as a Routine Grade Clerk-II in 1968 in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. He was asked to look after the sports by the respondent-Nagar Mahapalika. On the recommendation of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, a post of Sports Officer was sanctioned temporarily for a period of one year and the petitioner was appointed on the said post on ad hoc basis with an understanding that his ad hoc appointment was for a period of one year or till the regular selected candidate was made available for the post, whichever was earlier. The petitioner claims to have been given extension even subsequently, though the tenure of the post was not extended. The last extension was, according to the petitioner, upto 12.30.1987. As the post was not sanctioned rather a specific order was passed by the State authorities abolishing the said post vide order dated 03.05.1986, the petitioner was reverted to his original post vide order dated 12.05.1986. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9798 of 1986 and this Court, vide order dated 23.06.1986, stayed the operation of both the orders, i.e. 03.05.1986 and 12.05.1986. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Writ Petition No. 15100 of 1999 was filed seeking the relief of regularisation on the post, as he had been working on the said post since long.

(3.) Shri Shailesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there could be no justification for abolishing the said post and reverting the petitioner, as the post was found to be necessary in the public interest. As the petitioner had been working under the interim order of this Court since long, he is entitled for regularisation on the post of Sports Officer and there can be no justification for reverting him at the verge of his retirement, therefore, both the petitions deserve to be allowed.