An ad hoc employee does not have a vested right to continue in service beyond the fixed period for which they were appointed.

1. With the consent of the parties, both these petitions were heard together finally.

2. The petitioners were working as ad hoc lower Division Clerks in the Subordinate Courts in District Pratapgarh. On 1.2.94, the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of one year under Rule 23(3) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules; 1986. In the appointment orders, it was stated that a test was taken to test efficiency in Hindi and English typing and the petitioners were found up to mark. It was also stated in the appointment letter that the petitioners shall appear and clear the examination which may be taken for regular recruitment and shall also clear the typing test within one year. If they fail in the regular recruitment test, their services shall be liable to be terminated without notice. The District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on 23.1.95 authorised the Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate I Class, under him to terminate the services of petitioner Mukesh Kumar on his completion of the period of one year of appointment. Similar orders were issued in respect of other petitioners. The petitioners contention is that they have right to be continued till regular selection takes place. It is contended that in some other Districts of Rajasthan, such appointments have been continued till regular selections are made. It is also contended that three persons, who were appointed after the petitioners on 14.2.94, 4.5.94 and 5.5.94 respectively were continued in service and thus, the last come first go rule was violated. It is also contended that if the District Judge did not hold a regular selection test within a period of one year, the petitioners who were ready to take such test cannot be made to suffer. A Single, Bench decision of their Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 4563/92 decided on 9.2.93, Ku. Basant Hisaria v. State of Rajasthan, as also a Division Bench decision of this Court in Anita Kothari v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (1) RLR 87 were pressed into service. The decisions in State of Haryana and others v. Pyara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 Beer Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1987 SC 1345 and Sunder Das v. Collector, Thane, AIR 1991 SC 1893 were also referred to.

3. The respondents in their reply have taken the stand that the appointments being for a fixed period as a stop-gap arrangements under the Rule 23(3) of the rules, the petitioners did not have any vested right to continue in service beyond one year, the period for which the appointments were made. It is also submitted that under the administrative orders of this High Court the selection process in under way and selected candidates will be available to fill in the vacancies within a short time. As regards the junior employees being kept in service, it was pointed out that the appointment of those persons were also under Rule 23(3) for a period of one year and were liable to be terminated on expiry of that period of one year. It is also contended that the appointment of one Gyaneshwar who was appointed on 14.2.94 has accordingly come to an end and his services have been terminated and the services of other two persons will be terminated as soon as they complete the period of one year of their service.

4. Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the view that this petition does not deserve to be allowed. The appointment was clearly for a fixed period and whether to continue that any further is up to the employer. There cannot be any vested right in such matters. As regards the continuation of the appointment on sympathetic grounds, suffice it to say that a relief under Article 226 can be claimed on the basis of a vested right and not on the basis of sympathy. As regards the decisions cited, both the single bench decision of this Court and the Division Bench decision are distinguishable on facts. In Ku. Basant Hisaria's case (supra) the appointment was initially for a period of three month