PYARE LAL PANDEY Vs. THE COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner we find no merit in this petition. It appears that the Petitioner and some others were initially appointed as Peons in Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. Subsequently by an order dated 23rd September, 1985 the Petitioner and the others were promoted on Ad -hoc basis by the Administrator as Naib Moharrirs and they were continuing as such until the impugned order dated 23rd April, 1986 was passed by the Administrator reverting the Petitioner and others from the posts of Naib Moharrirs to their substantive posts of peons. It seems that this order was passed upon a communication received from Commissioner, Allahabad Division in which it was pointed out that the posts of Naib Moharrirs .were, under, the relevant service rules, required to be filled by direct recruitment and not by promotion. The appointment of the Petitioner and others to that post on Ad -hoc basis by promotion was hence not justified. It is in pursuance of this communication that impugned order has been passed by the Administrator.

(2.) FOR the Petitioner it is contended that the impugned order has been passed not by the Administrator who was the appointing authority on his own accord but at the behest of the Commissioner and consequently the same is liable to be quashed. We see no illegality if the Commissioner assuming that he was not concerned with the appointment or termination of services of the Petitioner brought to the notice of the Administrator the true legal position. In our opinion it was perfectly open to the Administrator to take into account the communication of the Commissioner dated 5th April, 1986 and on its basis terminate the services of the Petitioner and others.

(3.) THE next contention of the learned Counsel was that no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the Petitioner before the termination of his appointment as Naib Moharrir. In our opinion having regard to the nature of appointment of the Petitioner which was purely ad -hoc in character, no opportunity was legally required to be given to the Petitioner before terminating his appointment as Naib Moharrir. Further in view of the undisputed legal position that the posts of Naib Moharrirs filled by the Petitioner and others was meant for being filled by direct recruitment, it is apparent that the same could not be filled by promotion as was done in the case of the Petitioner. The Petitioner's appointment being void abinitio, no interference is called for.