H SUDHEENADRA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was originally appointed as a steno-typist purely on a temporary basis in the Unit of the District Judge, Kurnool, on 21-1-1988 and he was posted to work as steno-typist, Munsif Magistrate's court, Banaganapalle. Subsequently the 3rd respondent was also promoted as Steno-typist on 13-6-1988. By the impugned proceedings, the petitioner was ousted from service and a regular candidate approved by the A.P. Public Service Commission was posted to that unit. The main grievance of the petitioner that he worked as steno-typist for 20 months and gained much experience and the auction of the District Judge, Kurnool, in terminating his service while continuing the 3rd respondent as steno-typist is arbitrary and illegal.

(2.) The District Judge in his counter stated that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary steno-typist and the petitioner was replaced by a regular candidate approved by the A.P. Public Service Commission. He also submits that the 3rd respondent who is temporarily promoted as a steno-typist is being continued as no inter se seniority is fixed after observing the ratio of 3 : 1 bettween the direct recruits and promotees. As the petitioner was appointed to a post which falls within the purview of the Public Service Commission, his services cannot be regularised once a steno-typist has been appointed by the Public Service Commission.

(3.) When the petitioner is appointed as a temporary candidate and as a stop-gap arrangement, it does not confer on him any right to continue in the post when a candidate approved by the Public Service Commission is appointed and posted to this Unit. Moreover, the 3rd respondent is a promotee while the petitioner is recruited directly. In these circumstances, the District Judge has rightly retained the 3rd respondent as steno-typist while ousting the petitioner. The impugned order does not warrant any interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.