RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 3, the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur to permit the petitioner to work on the post of Assistant Wasil Baki Navis in Tahsil Sadar district Shahjahanpur.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel.

(3.) WITH profound respect to my learned brother of the Lucknow Bench I cannot at all agree with such kind of interim orders. It is settled law in service jurisprudence that a temporary employee has no right to the post (as held in the above decision) and hence even if the post is still existing this does not mean that a temporary employee has a right to continue on the post merely because the post is continuing to exist. In my humble opinion, the orders of the Lucknow Bench in teeth of the above decision of the Supreme Court and in viola tion of Article 16 of the Constitution which states that there has to be equality of oppor tunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment and appointment to any office under the State. Article 16, therefore, im plies that a post under the State has normal ly to be advertised or otherwise widely publicised so that all eligible persons can apply for the same. The above quoted inter im orders of the Lucknow Bench seem to imply that a person can get a back door appointment for a short period on ad hoc or temporary basis without any advertisement or selection and then by a court order he can continue. This is clearly against Article 16. 1 reiterate that merely because the post is still existing it does not mean that a purely tem porary employee has a right to continue on the post, rather the legal position is just the reverse, namely that a temporary employee has no right to the post.