IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 846 OF 2009 (S/S) Ram Bilas …………Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others. ………Respondents. Present: Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the State of U.P. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner was initially appointed on daily rate basis for a limited period between 15.7.1989 to 14.8.1989 in the erstwhile State of U.P. in the Department of “Zila Udyog Kendra”. Consequently, one such orders were again passed and then, vide order- dated 25.1.1990, the petitioner was given appointment for a period of three months in the pay-scale of ` 750- 940. This appointment was further extended for a period of three months. Meanwhile, the petitioner went to his village, as his mother had died, but after fifteen days when he went to join his duties, he was not given the joining. He was, therefore, constrained to file a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad being Writ Petition No. 12840 of 1990 Ram Bilas Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court after seven years, on 4.8.1997 with the following observations:- “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the various annexures. There is no doubt that every time the petitioner has been appointed / engaged for fixed short term and last engagement vide 2 orders dated 25.1.90 was for three months alone and thereafter, both the parties agree that the petitioner was not called upon to work. Now more than seven years have passed and it is expected that the post must have been filled. However, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the post is still lying vacant. If that be so it is open to the petitioner to apply afresh for his appointment on the post of Mali and if such an application is moved the opposite parties shall consider his case looking to his past experience and conduct. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has become over-age. It is, therefore, provided that if the appointing authority has power to relax the age then the said discretion be exercised in the case of the petitioner in accordance with rules. With the above observations this writ petition stands disposed of finally.” 2. Thus the petitioner moved a representation before the General Manager, “Zila Udhyog Kendra”, Dehradun, who decided this representation stating that the appointment on Class III and IV posts in the Department is banned under the Zero Base Budgeting by the Government and since many projects have already been complete, the employees who were working in those project have also been declared surplus and therefore, he cannot appoint the petitioner in the Department. The representation of the petitioner was, therefore, rejected 3 on 13.11.1997. The petitioner moved another representation claiming benefit of some Government Orders, which was also rejected on 7.12.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court being Writ Petition No. 5944 of 1998. After the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, this writ petition was transferred to this High Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Re- organisation Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000) and it was renumbered as Writ Petition No. 846 of 2009 (S/S). 3. Since this petition is an extremely old petition, this Court heard learned counsels for the parties at some length on 31.12.2010, but on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this matter was adjourned and fixed for today i.e. 3.1.2011. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 5. The counter affidavit, which has been filed by the State states that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of “Maali” on the daily rate basis for ` 15/- per day for the period from 16.8.1989 to 15.9.1989, and thereafter he was reappointed for the period from 20.10.1989 to 19.11.1989, for the period from 21.11.1989 to 23.1.1990, and thereafter, vide order dated 25.1.1990, he was again appointed for three months on the post of “Maali” in the pay-scale of ` 750-940. It has further been stated that the petitioner does not have any vested right on the post, as the appointment was never in accordance with law and was never regular. 4 6. The prayer, which has been made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, is as follows:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 13.11.1997 and 7.12.1998 passed by the opposite party no. 2 as contained in annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner on the post of Mali which is available in the department and pay him the salary regularly. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pass the reasoned and eloberative orders in the light of observations made in the judgment dated 4.8.1997 passed in Writ Petition No. 12840 of 90. (iv) To issue any other writ, order or directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the petitioner. (v) To award the costs of this petition to the petitioner against the opposite parties.” 7. In letter and spirit of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others Vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, the petitioner has no case. The petitioner does not have any right to claim appointment on the post, merely because intermittently he was appointed there for fixed periods. 5 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh Saini and others Vs. State of Punjab and others AIR 2002 SC 2535. In that case, the services of certain surplus employees were terminated. Although they had served in Census Organisation for the period between 1991 to 1994 and there was break in their service, the Apex Court while disposing of the petition stated that these factors will be taken into consideration while making future appointment. Firstly, the facts of the present case are wholly alien to the one relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in his favour. Secondly, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and others Vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, there is no further scope for interference by this Court in this matter. 9. There is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 3.1.2011 Rathour