that the respondent No.4 instead of being appointed against a post of peon by the order dated 30.10.2006 was appointed against the post of driver although that post may have been a suspension vacancy and the petitioner being at Sl.No.2 as per merit was appointed against the post of peon and later on when the person because of whom the suspension vacancy had arisen was reinstated in service and as a consequence, there was a necessity of readjustment, what had been done by the two orders dated 02.05.2014 is that had the respondent No.4 been adjusted against the post of peon and the petitioner was working as a peon was adjusted against the vacancy that had arisen upon the voluntary retirement of another incumbent Bipin Baishya, the same would have been legitimately accepted and the matter could have ended there. If the respondent No.4 was required to be adjusted because of the aforementioned circumstances, he also could have been adjusted against the vacancy on the voluntary retirement of Bipin Baishya by retaining the petitioner in the post wherever he was serving. But the reasoning of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court to terminate the services of the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances cannot be understood. We see no reason as to why the appointment of the petitioner is declared to be an illegal appointment. If the respondent No.4 had accepted his appointment as a driver without any protest and continues in the post for years together and by the same selection process, the petitioner is appointed to the post of peon which was advertised, no illegitimacy can be noticed and even the respondent No.4 has acquiesced to the aforesaid arrangement by not raising any protest by accepting the post of driver.
