ABDUL HASAN QURAISHI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. In this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Learned Counsel for parties have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage.

(2.) THE petition has been filed for a direction respondent No. 4 Regional Commandant (Home Guards), Allahabad Region, Allahabad to appoint petitioner as Urdu Translator in pursuance of his selection dated 18-2-1995. THEre is no dis pute about the fact that petitioner was selected for being appointed as Urdu Translator. However, from counter-af fidavit it appears that appointment was refused to petitioner on the ground that there is already one post on which a steno is working in the office of respondent No. 4, hence petitioner could not be ap pointed.

(3.) IN para 9 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that in pursuance of the order dated 20-8-1994 one Mohammad Yunus was already appointed as Urdu Translator at Fatehpur in the office of the District Commandant and order to this effect was issued on 7- 3-1995. However, in my opinion, this appointment could not be treated as an appointment in the office of the Regional Commandant referred to in the order dated 20-8-1994.