The Court held that the petitioner's appointment was made in violation of the rules and regulations governing the Mandi Samitis and Mandi Parishad. The respondents had made appointments intentionally, deliberately, and knowingly, being fully aware that such appointments were contrary to the rules. The Court further held that the respondents could not take advantage of their own wrong and they being instrumentality of the State have public accountability.

( 1 ) W h e t h e r appointment by Government of a welfare State or its instrumentality or department against regular vacancies on fixed salary for limited period, its continuance for two to three years and then termination amounts to exploitation under Article 23 of the Constitution ; whether the appointing authority can appoint deliberately against rules and claim that the appointee having been appointed illegally has no right and is not entitled to approach the High court under Article 226 ; whether such appointments which are contrary to rules and are made under political pressure or for other reasons which means extraneous consideration can lead to tortuous liability of the appointing authority are some of the questions of far-reaching importance that have been raised by the petitioner who has been helpless victim of such illegal action.

( 2 ) THE petitioner an unemployed youth of the weaker section of the society was appointed on 7. 8. 1996 against one of six sanctioned posts of clerks in Mandi Pariashad, Kanpur. It would be better to quote the letter dated 7. 8. 1996 as it gives in detail the number of vacancies, the procedure followed by the officers in appointing the petitioner, the purpose of appointment etc. The letter dated 7. 8. 1996 is quoted as under :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .

( 3 ) THE petitioner thus was appointed against regular vacancy as the work was suffering. He was given appointment, as it would satisfy the requirement of appointing schedule caste. The petitioner was otherwise found suitable both educationally and technically having short hand speed of 70 words per minute and typing speed of 40 words per minute. The Deputy Director (Construction) Mandi Parishad. Kanpur, recommended that he may be appointed on a fixed salary of Rs. 1,400 and till regular selection was made. It was agreed by the Additional Director administration for 89 days or till the regular selection was made. He was given extra charge of kanpur Khand Karyalaya by order dated 11. 12. 1996. The service of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 11. 6. 1999 on the ground that his services were no more required. He was paid one month salary as retrenchment compensation under Section 6n of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The order further stated that if any regular selections are held in future, the petitioner could participate in it. It is this order dated 11. 6. 1999, Annexure-4 to this petition, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

( 4 ) SRI B. D. Mandhyan the learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought time on 22. 9. 1999, to file counter-affidavit. A short counter-affidavit was filed on 27. 9. 1999. Sri mandhyan stated that the short counter-affidavit be treated as detailed counter-affidavit as he has filed as Annexure-1 to it which is the counter-affidavit filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12200 of 1999, on which he places reliance. He urged that no interim order be passed and the matter may be finally decided on merits. His request was accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not object to acceptance of Annexure-1 filed to the short counter-affidavit. She filed the rejoinder-affidavit. When arguments commenced Sri Mandhyan requested for one days time for reply as the constitutional questions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner and the issue of accountability of respondents, etc. were very important. His request was accepted. The argument of the learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Miss Mahima Maurya urged that the impugned tennination order violates fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution and Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39 (f) and also Article 41 of the Constitution. She urged that the respondents made appointments Intentionally, deliberately and knowingly being fully aware that such appointments were