SATYA NARALN YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Though this peti tion is listed for admission, but as the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder af fidavits and the learned counsel for the par ties have agreed that this petition may be disposed of finally, the petitioner was heard on merit and it is being disposed of finally.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Chaukidar in the institution of the respondent No. 2 as per direction issued by the Government orders. THE second relief is also for mandamus directing the respon dents to continue the petitioner in service and regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Chaukidar.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was never appointed on any post in the institution nor he was given any ap pointment letter. The petitioner has also not filed any appointment letter to prove that he was ever appointed. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit it is admitted that the petitioner was purely a muster roll employee, therefore, there is no question to terminate his services. It is also stated due to government decision many class IV employees have been attached to the in stitution, hence the work in the institution was not available. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit an assurance has been given that in future, when the appointment will be made due preference will be given to the petitioner admissible as per government policy. This assurance has also been reaf firmed in para 13 of the counter-affidavit in the following terms': "it is stated that since the petitioner was neither given appointment against any regular post nor any such post is lying vacant in the institu tion. He was muster roll employee and at present not a single post of class IV employee is vacant in the institution. However, in future, if any selection is being made, the petitioner will also be con sidered for his appointment on the basis of the Government policy regarding the persons whose land has been taken for the institution. "