SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE writ petitioner prays for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for regular appointment against vacant post of Assistant/ Clerk.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the contrary, submitted with reference to the counter affidavit that engagement of the petitioner was purely temporary in exigency of work and procedure for appointment of Class III posts were not followed. Thus, his engagement was by back door method and the petitioner, thus, cannot claim for his regularization/appointment as a matter of right.