RAIS AHMAD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harish Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for the following reliefs,

(3.) The petitioner's case is that he was working as Seasonal Collection Peon and on retirement of one Pute Lal , Collection Peon on 31.12.1991, he made an application for his appointment on the post held by Pute Lal in the light of his past experience and working. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Maharajganj called for a report from the Tehsildar on 20.06.1992. On the report submitted by the Tehsildar on 23.06.1992, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Maharajganj approved the appointment of the petitioner in a clear vacancy on adhoc and temporary basis. An appointment letter dated 30.06.1992 was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Maharajganj, appointing the petitioner under amended rule, 23 of the Collection Manual, 1984 on adhoc basis for a period of 1 year or till regular selection takes place, which ever is earlier. The petitioner started working from 01.07.1992 and vide order dated 1.2.1996, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Maharajganj confirmed the petitioner on the post of Collection Peon on the report of the Tehsildar, Sadar. However bythe order dated 26.08.1997, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Maharajganj on the ground that his appointment was only for one year which came to an end on 30.06.1993 but playing fraud he got his services confirmed and has continued on the post and drawn salary.