By the Court—In the instant petition the petitioner has prayed for commanding the respondents to treat him in service; even beyond the session 2005-06 and continue to pay salary until regular selected candidate is received from the Commission.

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the writ petition. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed on honorarium basis with clear stipulation that he shall continue till the end of session or till the recommendation from the Commission whichever is earlier. Therefore, the petitioner having accepted the term and conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment, cannot now claim that he should be allowed to continue till the recommendation is received from the Commission for regular appointment.

2. A perusal of the appointment letter dated 1.12.2005 (Annexure-2) shows without any doubt that the appointment was made time bound i.e. upto end of the session or till regularly selected teacher is available whichever is earlier. It is not disputed that the session for which the petitioner was appointed is come to an end on 30.6.2006 and therefore, pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner may continue to work only till 30.6.2006 if candidate selected by the Commission is not available earlier. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner in any case is only till 30.6.2006. In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner if accepted, would amount to altering term of his appointment by this Court by making the outer terminal redundant. It is not permissible in law. Extension of the appointment by judicial order is not permissible.

3. Similar controversy came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Alok Kumar Singh (Dr.) & 15 others v. State of U.P. and others, 2002(2) ESC 427 (All) wherein it has been held that the petitioners cannot claim any right to continue in service beyond the period of appointment provided in the letter of appointment. Since the matter is already concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court, interim order sought to be relied by the petitioners is of no help, as this Court is bound by the law laid down in the final judgment of this Court. Interim order do not lay down any binding precedent.

4. Besides, the appointment of the petitioner is for a fixed term i.e. till 30.6.2006 or till the regularly selected candidates join, whichever is earlier. In case no candidate selected by the Commission is available before 30.6.2006, the appointment of the petitioner shall come to an end by 30.6.2006 automatically by efflux of time. The appointment, being a fixed term appointment, it would amount to re-writing the appointment letter if the petitioner is allowed to continue beyond 30.6.2006 without there being any letter of appointment issued by the competent authority for the period subsequent to 30.6.2006. In the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.), 1992 (4) SCC 33 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appointment, which is made for fixed tenure comes to an end on the expiry of the period of appointment provided in the letter of appointment and the incumbent need not be terminated as the termination of employment comes automatically by efflux of time. In this case also, admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner is for fixed tenure and in case the contention of the petitioner is accepted it will amount to giving an appointment by this Court for the period subsequent to 30.6.2006 substituting itself to the position of appointing authority. This is neither permissible in law nor should be done. When a procedure is prescribed to do a thing in a particular manner, it should not be done otherwise.

5. Same view has been taken by this Court in W.P. No. 20871 of 2006 Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 25.4.2006; W.P.No. 25849 of 2006 Sarvesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 11.5.2006; and W.P.N