DAYA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. P. Mohapatra, C. J. Heard Sri S. K. Verma, Advocate for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 14-3- 96 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1109/92. In the said writ petition, the petitioner/appellant had prayed for a writ of mandamus to the opposite-parties/respondents to allow him to work on the post of Vahan Chalak since the date of his joining and pay the entire salary.

(3.) AS noted earlier, the petitioner/ap pellant has already been appointed on the post of Vahan Chalak vide appointment order dated 18-4-91 (Annexure No. 1-A ). In the said appointment order, it was specifically mentioned that the appoint ment was till the date specified in the order and it was likely to be continued there after. The petitioner had already joined the post in pursuance of the appointment order, therefore, in the circumstances, it is our considered view that the questions of availability of the vacancy, consideration of the petitioner's case for filling up such vacancy is not relevant. The simple ques tion was whether there was any justifica tion on the part of the opposite par ties/respondents to deny the work to the petitioner/appellant. No such justification has been stated in the impugned judgment nor any justification for such action is placed before us.