STATE OF U.P. vs BRIJ NATH MISRA

The Supreme Court held that the order dated September 8, 1989, allowing the respondent to resume duty was not a fresh appointment but a revival of his ad hoc appointment, subject to a break in service due to unauthorized absence. The Court clarified that the termination of the respondent's service was valid under Rule 8 of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment Rules, as he was found unfit for regularisation by the Selection Committee. Consequently, the High Court's ruling was deemed illegal, and the appeal was allowed, dismissing the writ petition without costs.