RISHI PAL Vs. COLLECTOR SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court -These two writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the controversy involved therein is identical.

(2.) THE essential facts are that an advertisement was issued on 10th October, 1979 inviting applications for filling up eight posts in the Ministerial Staff in the Collectorate at Saharanpur. In pursuance of this advertisement the petitioners made applications and they were subsequently interviewed for the posts by the Selection Committee constituted under the U. P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. After the completion of the selection a select list was prepared on 6- 4-1980 in which the petitioners' names also found place. Following the selection, letters of appointments were issued to the petitioners in April and May, 1980 in pursuance of which the petitioners were assigned work against the various posts in the Collectorate at Saharanpur. All of a sudden on 30th September, 1981 the petitioners were laid off. On enquiry the petitioners were told that their services were no longer required after 30th September, 1981. Further enquiries revealed that this action was taken by the respondent on the ground that the select list on the basis of which the petitioners were appointed had ceased to be operative with effect from 1-7-1980. Aggrieved by this action the petitioners have approached this Court. THE reliefs claimed is that the respondents be restrained from making any selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 15-1-1982 and that they be directed to take back the petitioners against the vacancies existing in the Collectorate at Saharanpur among Ministerial Staff.

(3.) WE shall presently demonstrate that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed initially were not temporary posts. It is another matter, if we accept the version put forward in the counter affidavit, that though the posts were permanent, the vacancies against which the petitioners appointed were temporary. The plea raised in the counter affidavit is that the vacancies had arisen because permanent incumbents of those posts had to be drafted for census work temporarily.