Appointees under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules have no legal right to continue in service beyond the period of their appointment, cannot insist on being replaced only by P.S.C. candidates, and have no right to claim regularisation.

The challenge in this original petition is against the termination of service of the petitioner as Pharmacist under the respondents. Admittedly, he was appointed on a provisional basis under Ride 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The petitioner's case is that his service cannot be terminated except for appointing a candidate regularly recruited through the Public Service Commission. The

petitioner further con lends (hat the view taken in the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. 358/90 against similar claims put forward by employees appointed provisionally under Rule 9(a)(i) of K.S.& S.S.R. is liable to be reconsidered in the light of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Civil. Appeal No. 2979/92 dt. (21h August 1992. A photo copy of (the judgment of (the Supreme Court was made available to this Court by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. The learned Single Judge, before whom the original petition came up for admission, referred the petition for being considered by a Division Bench.

3. The petitioner was appointed under Ext. P1 order dt.16-1-1992 through Employment Exchange as a Pharmacist purely on a provisional basis. His appointment was under Rule 9(a)(i) of K.S.& S.S.R. for a period of 179 days or till P.S.C. hands report for duty or lill the Board deems it necessary to terminate the service otherwise, whichev0er is earlier. It was also made clear in the order of appointment that the temporary appointment will not be extended or made permanent under any circumstances and that he will not be entitled to any preferential claim for future appointment against any category in the service of the Board by virtue of the temporary appointment. It was further made clear that he will not be entitled to any notice or pay in lieu of notice or any retrenchment compensation when the temporary engagement is stopped. Accepting all these conditions, the petitioner joined service under the 2nd respondent as pharmacist on a provisional basis. On completion of the period of 179 days, his service was terminated on 23-7-1992. Thereafter, lie was reappointed for a further period of 50 days from 26-7-1992 under Ext. P2 order. The above appointment was subject to all the conditions contained in the first order of appointment and it was also made clear that the appointment was for a period of 51) clays or till new employment exchange/ P.S.C. hand joins duly, whichever is earlier. The order contained a further condition that the petitioner's appointment will lie automatically terminated on expiry of 50days from the date of joining duly of P.S.C. recruit/new employment exchange hand, whichever is earlier and he will not be given notice of termination in this regard.

4. The petitioner accepted the above-mentioned conditions and joined duty as provisional pharmacist and on the expiry of 50 days; his service was terminated on 14-9-1992. It is alleged in the original petition that in his vacancy another candidate recruited through the employment exchange is being appointed.

5. The main thrust of the argument of the petitioner is that petitioner's service cannot be terminated in order to accommodate another temporary candidate and that he can be replaced only by regularly appointed candidate selected through the P.S.C. The above question was subject matter of consideration in a number of decisions of this Court. In Remlath v. State of Kerala & Others 1984 KLT 312, a Division Bench of this Court rejected the contention put forward by an appointee even after the expiry of 180 days for which period she was granted appointment, so long as candidates advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission are not available to substitute her. Same was the view taken by another Division bench of this Court in S. Parimalom v. State of Kerala, 1985 KLT 624. Alter referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Narayani's case (1984 KLT' 17), it was held that a candidate appointed under Rule 9(a)(i)