CWP (T) No. 12255 of 2008 and CWP No.217 of 2010 25.10.2010 Present: Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.R.Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. CWP No.217 of 2010 Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. M.R.Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Both the petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Petitioner Lal Chand was appointed as Milk Procurement Assistant vide order dated 31.5.2004 (Annexure A-1). It is evident that his appointment was on adhoc basis till such time the post is filled up on regular basis. This order was withdrawn vide order dated 27.7.2005 (Annexure A-2). Aggrieved of the same, petitioner filed Original Application before the Erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal. Petition was directed to be treated as a representation, which was to be decided by a speaking order. Vide impugned order dated 27.9.2005, Managing Director of the respondent-Federation has passed a detailed and speaking order after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner again filed Original Application before the Erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, wherein on 3.10.2005 following order was passed :- “Notice pending admission. Learned vice counsel waives service of notice on behalf of H.P. State Producer’s Milk Federation. Reply be filed within six weeks. List thereafter. In the meanwhile operation of Annexure A-4 dated 27.9.2005, qua the applicant is stayed.” 4. There is no dispute that this order is in operation till date. 5. On merits, it cannot be disputed that petitioner’s appointment was on adhoc basis. It also cannot be disputed that post of Milk Procurement Assistant is to be filled up in accordance with Recruitment and Promotion Rules. In the impugned order, it has been explained that petitioner is junior and other who are senior to him, are waiting to be considered for promotion to the post in question. From the appointment order (Annexure A-1), no vested right has accrued in favour of the petitioner. His appointment was on adhoc basis till such time the post was filled up by regular hand. It could be explained as to how petitioner was otherwise eligible for being considered for promotion to the said post, over and above persons who are senior to him. Consequently, it cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stand violated warranting interference by this Court. 6. Simply because petitioner has been allowed to continue to work on the post by virtue of the interim passed by the Erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, no equities can be claimed in his favour. Consequently, the petition being CWP (T) No. 12255 of 2008 is dismissed. Interim order dated 3.10.2005 stands vacated. 7. In view of dismissal of the petition filed by Lal Chand being CWP (T) No. 12255 of 2008, no interference is warranted in this petition (CWP No.217 of 2010). Petitioner Dhani Ram who is senior to petitioner Lal Chand in this writ petition is claiming benefits on the basis of the benefits granted to petitioner Lal Chand, whose claim already stands rejected. Consequently, writ petition No. 217 of 2010 is also dismissed. 25th October, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.