By the Court.—This Special Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.4.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge by which he has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was merely a temporary employee and has no right to hold the post. The learned Single Judge further held that even if a person is appointed on probation and unless an order in writing is passed for confirmation and he is continuing beyond the period of probation provided under the rules, he would not be deemed to have been confirmed automatically, merely because the probation period is over.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as a Constable in Provincial Arms Constabulary (hereinafter called the ‘P.A.C.’) on temporary basis. No order of confirmation had ever been passed. The services of the petitioner-appellant were terminated after working for about seven years on the ground that his services were no longer required, vide order dated 14.9.1998. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-appellant filed Writ Petition No. 42766 of 1998, which has been dismissed by the order impugned dated 22.4.2002. Hence the present Special Appeal.

3. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant that under no circumstance, the petitioner-appellant could be removed from service merely on the ground that his services were no longer required, even if he was holding the post on temporary basis. Secondly, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the petitioner-appellant had been appointed on probation, though no confirmation order had been passed, he would be deemed to have been confirmed after the period of confirmation was over.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the Special Appeal contending that the petitioner-appellant could not claim any right on the post and if his services were no longer required, he had rightly been removed. More so, if he was appointed on probation period and had not been confirmed after the expiry of the period of probation, that does not mean that he was deemed to have been confirmed. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is settled legal propositions that the person, who has been appointed on ad hoc basis with the conditions stipulated in his appointment letter, his services could be terminated in terms of the appointment letter. The petitioner does not have a right to claim any relief if his services are terminated in terms of the letter of appointment.

7. In State of U.P. and others 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.”

8. In a case like the instant, the Court has to be satisfied as what is the legally justiceable 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 Parshotam Lal Dhingra 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. Misra v. U.P. State Handloom Corporation, AIR 1987 SC 2408, the Apex Court has taken the same view.

9. 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 releva