A temporary appointment in a non-Government institution does not confer the status of a civil servant or civil post under the State, and therefore, the protections of Article 311 of the Constitution do not apply.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was a Mistry instructor (Carpentry) of the Murshidabad Institute of Technology, Berhampore, West Bengal. His complaint is that his services were wrongly terminated. He challenges the order of termination dated the 31st July, 1959. That order of the 31st July, 1959 stated:"i am directed to inform you that it has been decided to terminate your service in the post to which you were appointed on a temporary basis, I do hereby give you one month's notice for the termination of your service. This notice will take effect from the 1st August, 1959. "the petitioner obtained this Rule on the 17th September, 1959.

( 2 ) THREE main obstacles stand in the way of any relief being granted to the petitioner in this case.

( 3 ) THE first obstacle is that the petitioner's letter of appointment shows that he was appointed on "purely temporary basis". The letter dated the 3rd September, 1957- communicated to the petitioner is the letter of appointment and is in the following terms: "you are hereby offered the post of Mistry instructor (Carpentry) of Murshidabad Institute of Technology on pay of Rs. 110/- per month plus usual allowance on purely temporary basis. "

( 4 ) ON the records he continued to be temporary and he was not made permanent. In fact there are certain complaints about the unsatisfactory nature of his work. Be that as it may this much is certain that he was never made permanent and he always remained temporary until the notice of termination of his services as stated before. That being the case it is difficult for him to get any relief having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, and specially the observations made there at p. 42 in paragraph (11 ). The relevant observations on this point are at page 42:"it is, therefore, quite dear that appointment to a permanent post in a Government service, either on probation or on an officiating basis, is, from the very nature of such employment, itself of a transitory character and, in the absence of any special contract or specific rule regulating the conditions of the service, the implied term of such appointment, under the ordinary law of master and servant, is that it is terminable at any lime. In short, in the case of an appointment to a permanent post in a Government service on probation or on an officiating basis, the servant so appointed does not acquire any substantive right to the post and consequently cannot complain, any more than a private servant employed on probation or on an officiating basis can do, if his service is terminated at any time. Likewise an appointment to a temporary post in a Government service may be substantive or on probation or on an officiating basis. Here also, in the absence of any special stipulation or any specific service rule, the servant so appointed acquires no right to the post and his service can be terminated at any time except in one case, namely, when the appointment to a temporary post is for a definite period, in such a case the servant so appointed acquires a right to his tenure for that period which cannot be put an end to unless there is a special contract entitling the employer to do so on giving the requisite notice or the person so appointed is, on enquiry held on due notice to the servant and after giving him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, found guilty of misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or any other disqualification and is by way of punishment dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank. "

( 5 ) IT is unnecessary to discuss any further arguments on this point because they are all elaborately dealt with in this leading judgment of the Supreme Court on this point. There was no special contract in this cast and there was no special time stipulated in this case before me. I have quoted the letter of appointment it specified no time. It clearly said