Though the appellant was initially appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in the first respondent College which had number had the requisite students to allow the appellant to companytinue on that post, they had written to the Director of Higher Education to have him transferred to any other companylege.
Then he wrote a letter on January 28, 1985 requesting the third respondent to take him back on duty a telegram was sent by the third respondent informing the appellant that he need number companye for joining the duty.
Consequently, the Director of Higher Education had written to the Principal of the first respondent College to have him relieved so that he should be posted and instructed the third respondent College where there was a vacancy, to have him joined therein.
Unfortunately, instead of reporting himself for duty he went to the College, asked them to give him the letter of appointment as permanent teacher.
Then he filed the writ petition in the High Court.
Accordingly, on July 14, 1985, the Principal of third respondent College had agreed to and the appellant was directed to report for duty immediately in the third respondent College.
Since they did number give letter of appointment, he went to the Tribunal and obtained an order to have him posted as regular lecturer.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The High Court by its order dated August 30, 1993 in C.W.P. No.426 of 1985 dismissed the writ petition.
By that time six months time had lapsed.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
