Hon’ble (Dr.) Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri R.C. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate appearing for the High Court.

2. Petitioner has filed instant writ petition inter alia seeking for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.7.1989 and to direct the respondents to immediately put the petitioner back on job and pay him full salary including the arrears w.e.f. 16.7.1987.

3. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, vide an order dated July 15, 1987 issued by the Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under the orders dated 14.7.1987 of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the petitioner was appointed as officiating Routing Grade Assistant on the establishment of the Hon’ble Court at Lucknow in the pay scale of Rs. 354-550. Thereafter, petitioner completed all the formalities in terms of the order dated 15.7.1987 and gave joining to the learned Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench but he did not allow joining by saying that joining on the post has been stayed till further orders.

4. It has been submitted by the petitioner’s Counsel that as soon as the petitioner resumed his duties on 16.7.1987 within the stipulated and normal time in terms of the order dated 15.7.1987, he became a Government Servant and his service is to be regulated in accordance with law and not on the whimsical order passed by any authority. Further, on 16.7.1987 when the petitioner resumed his duties till today no order of termination has been passed by any competent authority and even it has not been served upon the petitioner meaning thereby that since 16.7.1987, the petitioner is continuing and holding his post of Routine Grade Clerk.

5. It appears from the record that when the petitioner was not allowed to join for quite some time, he preferred a representation dated 29.10.1987 and 2.11.1987 requesting therein to allow the petitioner to resume his duties in pursuance of the aforesaid letter of appointment. As no action was taken by the concerned authorities, the petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 7739 of 1987 which was decided on 1.8.1988. Aggrieved by the said judgment, he preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13761 of 1988 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16th December, 1988. After withdrawal of the SLP, the petitioner made a representation dated 17.3.1989 to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court. The said representation dated 17.3.1989 of the petitioner was considered and rejected vide order dated 24.7.1989, which is impugned in this writ petition.

6. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that instead of deciding representations of the petitioner which were pending, the Court has only referred the various contentions raised therein but has tactfully avoided to meet the contentions raised by the petitioner and has jumped over to decide the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 14.7.2987 and 16.7.1987 passed by the then Chief Justice. Further, the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice was not competent to review and recall the order of his predecessor i.e. the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Therefore, his order is against the public policy and administrative discipline.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of the decision rendered in Govind Saran Dwivedi v. Union of India, 1991 SCC (Suppl.) 330 and 1984 LCD 243; averred that the appointment order cannot be cancelled and if there was some defect or irregularity found in the appointment order in that event, it was mandatory to give show-cause notice to the petitioner before passing or cancelling the appointment order in question. It has next been contended by the learned Counsel that the impugned order amounts to removal from service as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the authorities to proceed and deal with the petit