SURENDRA SINGH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the contesting respondents.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 5-2-1996 by which the working of the petitioner has been ceased and salary has also been stopped.

(3.) FROM the above, it is clear that the consideration of the petitioner for appointment was dependent upon a vacancy and after following the relevant rules. The State Government mistook this as a direction for his appointment and passed the order dated 2nd December, 1994 that he should be appointed on daily wages till the regularly selected candidate is available. But, in fact, there was no vacancy as the respondent No. 5 was working therein. Curiously, the State went out of its way and passed the order dated 6th October, 1994 transferring the respondent No. 5 to create a vacancy for appointment of the petitioner. The respondent No. 5 challenged the aforesaid orders in Writ Petition No. 33919 of 1994 wherein the aforesaid order of the State Government dated 6-10-1994 was stayed. Nevertheless, inspite of the said order, the State Government vide order dated 23- 12-1994 directed the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bindki to allow both the persons to work on the single post and the Parishad was further burdened with payment of salary. The entire exercise of the State Government and the Director was de- hors the rules under the garb of the order dated 15-5-1993. The State Government cannot insist on appointment of a person de- hors the Rules and against the principles of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. No doubt after filing of the present petition an interim order dated 24-5-1996 was passed which was further modified on 11th June, 1996 on which basis, it is alleged, that the petitioner is continuing. It is apparent that the petitioner is continuing to function on the basis of an interim order of this Court but he has been unable to demonstrate any statutory legal right in his favour. It is not denied that the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer is governed by U. P. Nagar Palika (Centralized Service) Rules, 1966 and the Commission has never selected the petitioner. A local arrangement of couple of months or a year would not enure to the benefit to the petitioner, especially in a case where he came by the back door. A Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Smt. Uma Devi, 2006 (3) LBESR 260 (SC) : 2006 (4) S. C. C. 1, has held that where a person continues for a long period on the basis of such an interim order, he cannot claim any benefit unless his continuance is under an independent arrangement recognised in law.