Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner who was working as Seasonal Collection Amin at Tehsil Dadari District Gautam Budh Nagar was initially appointed on 3rd January, 1981 as a Seasonal Collection Amin. On account of death of regular Collection Amin, Rajendra Pathak, vacancy fell substantively vacant and accordingly petitioner was given substantive appointment by the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate on 31st July, 1989. A select list of the candidates of the Seasonal Collection Amin prepared for the purpose of giving substantive appointment against 35 per cent quota reserved for appointment from Seasonal Collection Amin to Regular Collection Amin and name of the petitioner figures at 18 of the select list which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Pursuant to the appointment, petitioner joined his services as Collection Amin. While petitioner was discharging his duties, another order was issued from office of the Collector/District Ghaziabad under the signatures of the Incharge Officer (Collection), Ghaziabad, in which proposal was mooted that one Jai Prakash who was working as temporary Collection Amin and was there in the select list at serial No. 42 was to be transferred and posted against the post of Collection Amin due to death of Rajendra Pathak on which petitioner was already working under the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 31st July, 1989. The order dated 31st July, 1989 whereby the petitioner was given substantive appointment, was recommended to be cancelled. The operative portion of the recommendation dated 8the September, 1989 issued from office of the Collector/District Magistrate, Ghaziabad is reproduced hereunder:

^^Jh t;izdk'k vLFkkbZ laxzg vehu rglhy gkiqM+ p;fur lwph ds vH;FkhZ gS dk LFkkukUrj.k Jh jktsUnz ikBd laxzg vehu rglhy nknjh ds vkl ikl Hkh vkus dkj.k gqbZ fjfDr esa rglhy nknjh esa fd;k tkrk gSA Jh jktsUnz ikBd ds fjDr LFkku ij vkids vkns'k fnukad 31&7&89 ds }kjk Jh ckcw jke 'kekZ dh rnFkZ vLFkkbZ :i ls dh xbZ fu;qfDr rqjUr lekIr dj nh tk;sA

;g vkns'k rRdkyizHkko ls ykxw gksaxsA^^

3. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it transpires that some recommendation was made from the office of District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and that was to be acted upon by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned being appointing authority but in the meanwhile before any consequential action could have been taken, the petitioner challenged the said order vide writ petition No. 17198 of 1989 and this Court had pleased to stay the order dated 7th November, 1989 in following terms:

“Standing counsel is granted a months time to file a counter-affidavit. List this petition on 07th November, 1989. Meanwhile the services of the petitioner as Collection Amin shall not be dispensed with. Sd/V.N.K.

Sd/ K.K.B.

20.9.89”

4. It appears that as consequence to the above order, no further action was taken at the end of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and petitioner continued to work on the post of Collection Amin in substantive capacity. The aforesaid writ petition however came to be dismissed finally on 5.8.1997 on the ground that petitioner was though given substantive appointment but only on temporary basis and since Jai Prakash belonged to scheduled caste, he was offered appointment in preference to the petitioner and the petitioner having not acquired any lien on the post in question and having worked only on the strength of interim order of the Court, said period cannot be reckoned with for the purposes of regularZation. Writ petition was dismissed and the interim order was vacated on 5.8.1997. Relevant portion of the order of this Court dated 5th August, 1997 is reproduced hereunder:

“From the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Collection Amin purely on ad hoc basis and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice. The order of appointment mad