( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1, sri Neeraj Tripathi for respondent No. 5 and Sri Reghavendra Dwivedi for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed vide appointment order dated 1. 4. 2000 in a purely ad hoc capacity as Tax Officer in the service of Zila Panchayat. Allahabad. The appointment order itself states that the petitioners appointment is ad hoc and for a maximum period of one year, it further states that the appointment is purely temporary and can be terminated at any time. Thereafter the petitioners service was extended in ad hoc capacity for one year from 1. 4. 2001 or till regularly selected candidate was available, whichever was earlier, fide order dated 23. 7. 2001. Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thus, this extension order dated 23. 7. 2001 continued the petitioners service only till 31. 3. 2002.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a right to continue till a regularly selected candidate is available for the post. We do not agree with this submission. There is no such legal principle that a temporary employee has a right to continu