COURT NO. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 2652/2001 (Old No. 42281/1999) Suman Dayal Tyagi, S/o Sri Ishwar Dayal Tyagi, R/o Vikas Colony, District Haridwar. ……….Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttar Pradesh, Through its Secretary to Govt. of U.P., Department of Urban Development, Civil Secretariate, Lucknow. 2. State Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow, Through its Secretary. 3. District Magistrate, Haridwar. ……….Respondents Sri Sharaed Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 25th March, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.3.1999, contained as Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for his absorption on the post of clerk in the Election Officer, Local Bodies, Haridwar. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed in the office of District Election Office, Haridwar as daily wager on the post of Junior Clerk for a fix period of four months which was subsequently extended from time to time and ultimately by letter dated 26.1.1996 the same was extended up to 28.2.1997. A circular dated 27.1.1997, contained as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, was issued by the respondent no. 2, wherein it has been directed that the services of all daily rated employees employed in Election offices of Local Bodies and Panchayat Raj will not be extended beyond 28.2.1997, and in compliance of the said circular the services of the petitioner were terminated by the order dated 17.3.1997, contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Aggrieved with the abovementioned order dated 17.3.1997, the petitioner preferred writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 7.4.1997 with the observation that in future if work is available and daily wagers are appointed then the opposite parties concerned are directed to consider the name of the petitioner, also giving preferential claim. Special appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.4.1997 was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner made representations dated 2.1.1998 & 20.7.1998 before the District Magistrate, Haridwar and Secretary, Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow respectively. The petitioner filed another writ petition before the Allahabad High Court which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 7.1.1999 with the direction to the District Magistrate, Haridwar to decide the petitioner’s representation. In compliance of the said order dated 7.1.1999, the District Magistrate/District Election Officer, Haridwar considered the representations of the petitioner and rejected the same by the impugned order dated 27.3.1999. 3. Undisputedly the petitioner was temporarily appointed as daily wager and his appointment was not on permanent basis. The employment of the petitioner was for stipulated period which was extended from time to time. The main ground of challenge is that the petitioner has worked for quite a long period. No allegation of any malafide has been made in the writ petition. Such termination orders have been held to be valid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla reported in (1991) 1 SCC 691. 4. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh