Thereafter on 5.3.97 he was also appointed on ad hoc basis under Section 3 3 of the said Act as Programme Officer in the Department of Adult Education for a period of 90 days only.
However, on 6.6.97 the respondent terminated the services of the appellant on the said posts on the ground that his companytinuance on the same post was companytrary to the law and further his period of appointment has already expired.
In other words, the submission on behalf of the University is that this appointment was on ad hoc basis which companyld only be for a short period.
The vacancy on the aforesaid post, as per submission for the appellant is since 1995 and till regular appointment is made he should be permitted to work.
It seems, during pendency of this matter before the High Court, the University authorities initiated proceedings to fill up this post by advertising for its selection.
The appellant aggrieved by this order passed by the High Court, preferred the present appeals.
The said appointment was extended on 10.2.97 for a further period of six months.
Leave granted.
