The Special Appea; dismissed since the appellant’s appointment was on officiating basis without adhering to prescribed procedures, creating no right to continue in service.
The appeal was dismissed with no right to continue in service.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 489 of 2018
Appellant :- Prem Prakash Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This appeal is barred by limitation from 7 years and 125 days. Ignoring the same we have examined merits of the case.
This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 25th February, 2011 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ- A No. 20193 of 1993.
Under the order impugned, learned Single Bench by relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Makhija and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2004 (1) UPLBEC 87 held that the appointment made to the appellant-petitioner was holding a post on officiating basis and, as such, no right was available to him to continue in service. The respondents thus rightly termintated him under the order dated 6th March, 1993.
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appointment of the appellantpetitioner was against the substantive vacancy and, as such, there was no occasion to discontinue in service.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.
From perusal of the order dated 16th September, 1988, it reveals that appointment was given to the petitioner without adhering any procedure either prescribed in the rules or even by adopting any fair method. The appointment given was purely on officiating basis against the vacancies arose due to intermittent reasons. Apparently, the appointment on the appellant-petitioner was dehor the rules and does not create any right in his favour. Learned Single Bench has rightly dismissed the
writ petition. No interference therein is warranted.
The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.8.2018 Rameez
(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appointment made without adhering to prescribed procedures creates a substantive right to continue in service.
Whether the termination of a person appointed on an officiating basis against a vacancy arising intermittently was lawful.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar Makhija and Others Vs. State of U.P. and OthersRelied on¶7
Vinod Kumar Makhija and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2004 (1) UPLBEC 87
Prem Prakash Tripathi
State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Govind Mathur
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
