Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19500 Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2342 of 1998 Petitioner :- Km.Shanno Rizvi Respondent :- Board Of Ravenue Counsel for Petitioner :- Arshad Rizvi,Gulam Ali Rashidi,Madhumita Bose,Ram Chandra Dwivedi,Robin Mitra,Smt.B.Godiyal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. I.A. No. 15 of 2023 (Delay Condonation Application) 1. Heard. 2. This delay condonation application has been filed to condone the delay in filing the recall application. 3. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application is sufficient. 4. The application is allowed. 5. The delay in filing the recall application is condoned. I.A. No. 16 of 2023 1. Heard. 2. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the recall application for recalling the order dated 23.2.2015 is sufficient. 3. The application is allowed. Order dated 23.2.2015 is recalled. The petition is restored to its original number. Order on memo of writ petition 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the oral termination order dated 1.4.1998 passed by District Magistrate, Faizabad (Respondent No. 2). b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the salary of the petitioner month and to month and regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Aririkt Pratilipik (Addl. Copying Clerk), Revenue Record-room, Collectorate, Faizabad." 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner was appointed as Atirikt Pratilipik (Addl. Copying Clerk), Revenue Record-room, Collectorate, Faizabad and her service was terminated orally. It has also been submitted that there is no interim order in favour of the petitioner. 3. In paragraph no. IV of the counter affidavit it has been submitted by the learned A.G.A. that for doing additional work, the petitioner was appointed as per Para 1342 to 1343 of the Revenue Mannual for short period. He further submits that when the exigency of service was over, the effect of the order dated 6.4.1991 came to an end and consequently, the service of the petitioner was terminated orally. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through to the record, I am of the view that as petitioner was not appointed on any substantial vacancy or on the post and he was only appointed for competing additional work, therefore, the petitioner has not any substantial right to be appointed as prayed for. There is no interim order passed in his favour. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. [Brij Raj Singh, J.] Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Anuj Singh Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench