JUDGMENT
D.K. Seth, J.
1. By the order dated 21.2.1990 (Annexure-2), the petitioner was asked to carry on the work of Junior Engineer (Technical) in a vacant post for a period of two months or till joining of a regular Junior Engineer on ad hoc basis. By order dated 17.7.1991 (Annexure-11), the petitioner was asked to handover charge to regular Junior Engineer, who had joined the post. The petitioner has challenged this order by means of this writ petition.
2. Mr. Madan Lal Srivastava holding the brief of Mr. Janardan Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relied on a Government Order dated 19th September, 1981 (Annexure-13) and contended that in view of the said Government Order, the petitioner cannot be removed.
3. On the basis of such allegation, the petitioner has obtained an interim order and is still coninuting in the said post.
4. Respondent No. 5 as well as the State Government has filed counter-affidavit pointing out that the arrangement so made was purely on ad hoc basis. The said appointment of the petitioner was also limited by time though continued for such period but it was subject to joining by a regularly selected candidate.
5. Mr. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel, contends that the petitioner has not acquired any right by virtue of the said Government Order, which is only an administrative instruction without any statutory or binding force. On the basis of administrative instruction, the petitioner cannot have any right. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. Mr. R.S. Verma, appearing for respondent No. 5, contends that the said G.O. was issued in the year 1981 and it had dealt with the circumstances then prevailing. It had no manner of application in respect of future circumstances. The petitioner having been given promotion in 1990.
7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner was promoted purely on ad hoc basis till regularly selected candidate joins the post or two months whichever is earlier. Admittedly, the petitioner was allowed to work for more than the period stated above. But the fact remains that he was promoted on two conditions viz., either for a period of two months or till regular candidates joins the post. May be his service was not terminated on the expiry of two months, but that does not take away the other ground namely till regularly selected candidate joins the post. By virtue of said promotion, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be appointed in the said post on regular basis or against permanent vacancy. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. However, he was asked to work on the said post only because of experience. As a matter of fact, such promotions are to be given strictly in terms of the recruitment Rules. Unless the petitioner fulfills the requirements prescribed under the Rules, he cannot claim the post. It is not the petitioner’s case that he was given regular promotion. Then again, the Government Order referred to by the learned Counsel for petitioner, clearly speaks of a situation which was prevailing at the time when the said order was issued. It was pointed out therein that as and when regular candidate joins, those who have been asked to carry on duties on the post of Junior Engineer (Technical), should be removed. However, an exception is craved out that those who have been given temporary promotion in the post of Junior Engineer (Technical) from the post of Draftsman for the time being, they may not be removed. It deals in respect of those cases of Draftsman, who have been promoted temporiarily at that point of time i.e. 1981, they may not be removed for the time being. It has never prescribed that the situation so prevailing at that time, is to be continued thereafter also. Nothing has been indicated in the said order that it will apply in future cases also. Then again, it was a temporary decision for the time being. It is not known whether any other/further Government Order was issued in that regard or not. No material is produced to lead at the conclusion that the said Government Order is still applicable. Thus, it appears that the said Government Order as it stands, cannot be attracted in a case where the petitioner was asked to look after the post of Junior Engineer (Technical) by order dated 21.2.1990. By order dated 17.7.1991 the petitioner was asked to handover charge to the regularly selected candidate in the public interest. The said order appears to be purely an administrative decision, with which this Court cannot interfere unless the petitioner is able to establish that he was acquired and legal right to continue in the said post.
8. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned dated 17.7.1991 (Annexure-2).
9. The writ petition, therefore, falls and is accordingly dismissed.
10. However, it may be observed here that by virtue of interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner continued for a long time and carried on work in the post of Junior Engineer (Technical), therefore, the salary of the said post already paid to him, may not be recovered from the petitioner. It is admitted position that the petitioner having worked for such a long period, he must have acquired sufficient experience of the said post, which may be a consideration at the time while making promotions in case he is otherwise eligible for the said post in terms of the Rules applicable to his service. However, the period during which he was worked by virtue of the interim order, shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
