MUKESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W h e t h e r appointment by Government of a welfare State or its instrumentality or department against regular vacancies on fixed salary for limited period, its continuance for two to three years and then termination amounts to exploitation under Article 23 of the Constitution ; whether the appointing authority can appoint deliberately against rules and claim that the appointee having been appointed illegally has no right and is not entitled to approach the High Court under Article 226 ; whether such appointments which are contrary to rules and are made under political pressure or for other reasons which means extraneous consideration can lead to tortuous liability of the appointing authority are some of the questions of far-reaching importance that have been raised by the petitioner who has been helpless victim of such illegal action.

(2.) The petitioner an unemployed youth of the weaker section of the society was appointed on 7.8.1996 against one of six sanctioned posts of clerks in Mandi Pariashad, Kanpur. It would be better to quote the letter dated 7.8.1996 as it gives in detail the number of vacancies, the procedure followed by the officers in appointing the petitioner, the purpose of appointment etc. The letter dated 7.8.1996 is quoted as under : ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..

(3.) The petitioner thus was appointed against regular vacancy as the work was suffering. He was given appointment, as it would satisfy the requirement of appointing schedule caste. The petitioner was otherwise found suitable both educationally and technically having short hand speed of 70 words per minute and typing speed of 40 words per minute. The Deputy Director (Construction) Mandi Parishad. Kanpur, recommended that he may be appointed on a fixed salary of Rs. 1,400 and till regular selection was made. It was agreed by the Additional Director Administration for 89 days or till the regular selection was made. He was given extra charge of Kanpur Khand Karyalaya by order dated 11.12.1996. The service of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 11.6.1999 on the ground that his services were no more required. He was paid one month salary as retrenchment compensation under Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The order further stated that if any regular selections are held in future, the petitioner could participate in it. It is this order dated 11.6.1999, Annexure-4 to this petition, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.