STATE OF U P Vs. DANVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Saurabh Lawania, learned State counsel for the appellants and Sri Pt. S.Chandra for the respondents. This special appeal by the State of U.P. and others challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7.7.1999, by means of which the writ petitions preferred by the respondents challenging the orders of termination have been disposed of. The termination orders have been quashed only on the ground that the same had not been issued by the authority competent to do so. According to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, the respondents were appointed on the posts of Junior Clerk by the Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun whereas services of the appellants have been terminated by the Regional Transport Officer, Moradabad, who was not the actual appointing authority of the respondents. The controversy aforesaid only requires determination that on the date of appointment of the respondents, who was the authority competent to make such an appointment and who actually made their appointments. By means of notification dated 26.8.1992, the post of Regional Transport Officer, Moradabad was temporarily transferred to Bareilly. The notification aforesaid also provided that all the work of this post will be carried on accordingly. Later on, vide notification dated 22.9.1993 in continuation of the aforesaid notification dated 26.8.1992, the State Government authorised the Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun to discharge the functions of the Regional Transport Officer, Moradabad till a regular appointment is made. The position thus that emerges is that on 26.8.1992, the post and responsibility of functioning of Regional Transport Officer, Moradabad was transferred to Bareilly and, therefore, whatever action could have been taken during the subsistence of the said notification, could have been taken by the Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly. Thereafter, on issuance of the notification dated 22.9.1993, the said post and work was transferred to Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun, which arrangement was to continue till a regular person was appointed. Thus, with effect from 22.8.1993, the appointment of the respondents, if at all was to be made, could have been made by the Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun. The record reveals and it is also not disputed that the respondents were appointed by the Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun on 20.4.1993 i.e. much before the issuance of the notification dated 22.9.1993. The appointment thus itself was made by the authority, who was not competent to do so. Apart from this, the appointment orders of the respondents clearly state that their appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and the same was to discontinue when regular persons are available. The appointment was made only looking to the exigency of the work. It was specifically pleaded in para 5 of the counter affidavit that on 11.1.1994, regularly selected persons had joined and, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the letters of appointment issued to the respondents, their services stood automatically terminated on the joining of regularly selected persons and they had no right to continue, but the learned single Judge did not consider the said plea and merely on the ground that the Regional Transport Officer, Moradabad was not competent to terminate the services of the respondents, passed the order under appeal. We do find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appointment of the respondents itself was made by an authority not competent to make appointments on 20.4.1993 and further, the said appointment being purely ad hoc, on regularly selected candidates being available, the respondents could not have been allowed to continue on the post, more so when the their appointments were made by the authority which was not competent to make such appointments. The Regional Tranport Officer, Moradabad had terminated the services whose powers ordinarily were being exercised by the Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly and thereafter by reason of transfer, by the Regional Transport Officer, Moradabad. This arrangement came to an end on 3.12.1999. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The writ petitions preferred by the respondents are dismissed.