1998 Supreme(Raj) 1157
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.S.Chauhan, J.
Shambhu Kumar - Appellant
Versus
District Judge, Udaipur - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 144 of 1998.
Decided On : 27-07-1998
For the Petitioner:Mr. Gopal Vyas and Mr. Pradeep Shah, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. K.L. Jasmatia, Additional Advocate- General, with Mrs. R.R. Kanwar, Additional Govt. Advocate.
A temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services can be terminated without assigning any reason.
Headnote:
TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - NO RIGHT TO HOLD POST - NO VIOLATION OF LEGAL RIGHT - NO RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on a temporary basis for a period up to 31-12-96, which was later extended to 31-12-97. However, he was not allowed to work from 1-1-98, leading to the filing of a writ petition challenging the termination of his services.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's appointment was purely on a temporary basis and that he had no right to hold the post. The court further held that the termination of his services did not amount to a violation of any legal right and that he was not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's appointment was temporary or substantive? 2. Whether the termination of the petitioner's services was illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to hold that a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and that his services can be terminated without assigning any reason. 2. The court also held that the petitioner's appointment was not made in accordance with the recruitment rules and that he was not entitled to any protection under the rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order of termination of the services of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk as it had been advertised by the respondent No. 1 in the District Judgeship of Udaipur. After following the full-fledged selection process, he was given appointment on temporary basis vide order dated 22-8-96 contained in Annexure-1. The said appointment letter provided that his appointment was only on a temporary basis up to 31-12-96. He was given further extension by passing the order dated 20-5-97 up to 31-12-97 and, however, he was not allowed to work with effect from 1-1-98, hence this petition.
3. Mr. Vyas has submitted that as the petitioner has been appointed after holding a fullfledged selection process, his appointment cannot be treated as temporary and his services could not have been terminated without following the procedure established by law.
4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was appointed on the post on temporary basis, thus, he cannot claim that he was having any right to the post, and he is to be treated as having been appointed in substantive capacity and his appointment came to an end automatically by efflux of the tenure stipulated in the letter extending the tenure of his service and the cannot claim any relief before this Court.
5. In State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 (1) SCC 691 the Apex Court has categorically held as under:-
"Under the service jurisprudence a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated in accordance with the relevant service rules and the terms of contract of service."
6. In a case like the instant the Court has to be satisfied as what is the legally justiciable right of the petitioner which has been infringed and for which the petitioner can resort to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Purshotam Lal Dingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, has held that "A person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier" and further held that "a Government servant holding a post temporarily does not have any right to hold the said post". In R.K. Mishra v. U.P. State Handloom Corporation, AIR 1987 SC 2408 Apex Court has taken the same view.
7. A temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. Similarly, in Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 496; Commissioner of Food and Supply v. Prakash Chandra Sexena, 1994 (5) SCC 177; Ram Chandra Tripathi v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal, 1994 (2) JT 84; Madhya Pradesh Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Devendra Kumar Jain, 1995 (1) SCC 638 and Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice, has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount forfeiture of any legal right.
8. In Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1558, the Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on the observations made in Malloch v. Aberdden Corporation, 1971 (2) All ER 1278, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"A breach of procedure, whether called a failure of natural justice or an essential administrative fault cannot give him a remedy in the Courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The Court does not act in vain."
9. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raguvendra Sheshgiri Rao Kulkarni, 1998 (1) SCC 460
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
