Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P.Through Secy. vs Salman Ahmad on 28 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 18 of 2001
Appellant :- State Of U.P.Through Secy.
Respondent :- Salman Ahmad
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- M.M.Ahmad,C.S.C.,Govind Sharan Soni,Vineet Bihari Patel
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Mr. Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is present for the State.
2. None present on behalf of the respondent to contest the appeal.
3. On the last date also, none had appeared on behalf of the respondent and the matter was posted for today.
4. Today, the case is listed peremptorily, as such, the court proceeds to hear learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and decide the matter.
5. The instant special appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2000, passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3382 (S/S) of 1997, whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petition.
6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed on the post of Village Panchayat Adhikari on 08.12.1986. After having worked four about six months, the respondent's services were terminated on 31.12.1986 on the ground that the selection was held illegal.
7. The respondent challenged the order of termination by filing Writ Petition No.3382 (S/S) of 1997 and the Hon'ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by means of judgment and order dated 20.07.2000 holding that the petitioner were not granted any opportunity to show cause before the order of termination was passed.
8. The State has filed the special appeal against the aforesaid order dated 20.07.2000, passed by Hon'ble Singe Judge and the appeal had been filed with some delay. Previously, the appeal was listed on 18.01.2023, on which ate also nobody had appeared for respondent and in the interest of justice the case was listed for today peremptorily after condoning delay in filing of appeal and as stated above, today also none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent to contest the appeal.
9. A copy of the appointment order of the respondent annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the special appeal shows that he was appointed on 06.12.1986 on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari on ad-hoc basis and it was categorically mentioned in the appointment order that his appointment was entirely on ad-hoc and temporary basis which could have been terminated at any time without giving any prior notice and that it would not make the respondent eligible for permanent appointment.
10. The respondent's services were terminated by means of an order dated 31.12.1986, stating that his services were not required any more. The relief prayed by the respondent in the writ petition was merely for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the appellants to give priority to the respondent on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari and the respondent had not challenged the order of termination of services made on 31.12.1986 yet the Hon'ble Single Judge held that the termination order could not be sustained in the eyes of law and quashed the same.
11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the respondent had been appointed by means of an order dated 06.12.1986 on ad-hoc basis, on a specific condition that his appointment could be terminated at any time without giving any information in this regard. The respondent's ad-hoc appointment was terminated by means of order dated 31.12.1986 on the ground that his services were not required any more. The respondent did not challenge the order of termination and even in the writ petition filed in the year 1997 i.e. after about nine years since passing of the termination order, the respondent had not challenge the termination order and yet the Hon'ble Single Judge quashed the termination order. We are of the considered opinion that in absence of a challenge having been made to the termination order, the Hon'ble Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the termination order of the respondent, more so when the writ petition was filed after nine years since the passing of the termination order with a prayer for giving the respondent priority in making the appointment to the post in question.
12. Even on merits, we find that the appointment order dated 06.12.1986 categorically mentions that the respondent's appointment was made initially on ad-hoc and temporary basis, which could be terminated at any point time without giving any prior notice and the order dated 31.12.1986 terminating the service of the respondent state that the same was being terminated as the respondent's service was not required any more. We do not find any illegality in the termination order dated 31.12.1986 and, therefore, no interference was warranted in the aforesaid order.
13. In view of the aforesaid, the instant special appeal stands allowed.
14. The judgment and order dated 20.07.2000, passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3382 (S/S) of 1997 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
15. No order as to the costs.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 28.1.2023
Ram.
