Contractual appointments do not confer any right on the appointee, and temporary employees cannot claim to be made permanent unless the appointment was made following due process of selection as per the relevant rules.

J.M. Malik, J.- The facts germane to the case of the petitioners are these. The petitioners are working as Domestic Breeding Checkers/Health Workers with the Health Department of MCD since 1996 on daily wages/contract works in various specialised programmes like Anti-Malaria Operations and others at a consolidated sum and time as specified and declared by the respondent. MCD published a public notice dated 3.1.2006 mentioning that seniority list is being prepared by MCD on the basis of initial date of engagement of Domestic Breeding Checkers/Health Workers from 1977.

2. This Court vide writ petition titled Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. MCD and Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 476-97 of 2006 issued certain directions for preparation of seniority list. The respondent published seniority list dated 4.5.2006. However, the seniority list does not mention about the post of health workers. There is no sanctioned post for Domestic Breeding Checker but the post of Health Worker is a sanctioned post on which the respondent had been recruiting regular employees. The petitioners have been working at the post of Health Workers since 1996.

3. On 26.7.2006, the MCD required the petitioners to submit affidavits mentioning all the terms and conditions of the agreement. They also threatened the petitioners that they would remove the petitioners from duty, if the petitioners do not follow the said order. The said affidavit mentions that the engagement of the petitioners is as Domestic Breeding Checkers, only. It is alleged that it would jeopardize the petition of the petitioners who have been serving the respondents as Health Workers. Again, it would also affect the petitioners in future employment.

Under these circumstances, it has been prayed that the proposed agreement in the form of affidavit be set aside, MCD be directed to treat the petitioners in service as Health Workers and to start process for regularization of the petitioners as per seniority list and to give minimum wages as prevalent in the State of Delhi.

4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioners are working in the MCD for the last more than ten years. He alleged that the petitioners are being forced to file the above said affidavits which would certainly affect their careers, scope of further employment and the question of their seniority. He also pointed out that this Court in so many connected cases had already granted stay orders and has produced the copies of three/four orders in this context.

5. I see no force in the arguments urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is an admitted fact that the petitioners are daily wagers. They have no legal right. In the recent celebrated authority reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, III (2006) SLT 539=(2006) 4 SCC I, it was held:

"Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the Court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of emp