AJOY NATH RAY, C. J. AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

( 1 ) APPEAL is taken up and summarily disposed of.

( 2 ) AS we have not called for affidavits, allegations in the stay application cannot be taken to be admitted.

( 3 ) THE impugned order has been passed by the Honble Mr. Justice Shishir Kumar on 16. 2. 2005. His Lordship has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition of the appellant.

( 4 ) AFTER a usual selection process, on the 26th November 1991 the writ petitioner was selected along with seven others and given an appointment letter. He joined on the 28th of that month. On 30th i. e. two days after joining, his services were terminated, the notice simply stating that his services were no longer required. The appointment letter dated 26. 11. 1991 did not confer on the writ petitioner permanent employment. T he posts for which the writ petitioner and seven others along with him were selected, were no doubt permanent posts. But the letter of appointment given to the writ petitioner made the following provisions; (i) that the employment would be for a maximum period of three months and (ii) during that period the employment of the writ petitioner would be terminated even without any notice.

( 5 ) IT is undisputed fact that at the time the writ petitioner gained employment, he was facing trial along with certain other members of his family under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge being the murder of a lady who lived in the neighbourhood. It is also undisputed that this fact of being under trial was not disclosed by the writ petitioner. It is equally undisputed that the writ petitioner and all the other accused have been given the benefit of doubt and have been acquitted in or about 2001.

( 6 ) IN these circumstances, the writ petitioner first submitted that the letter of termination sought to sut an end to the employment which was for a fixed term, i. e. three months and therefore, the very terminal, on was penal and stigmatic in nature to substantiate this, reliance was placed upon a full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court reported at (1999) 1 UPLBEC 54 Kumari mamta Jauhari v. State of U. P. and Anr. and paragraph 38 of the said judgment was placed before us. The said paragraph is quoted below:

"38. For determining whether penal element is involved in termination of service of a government servant, distinction between two classes of Government Servants, namely, those who have right to or lien upon post held by them and those who have no such right, may be drawn. In case where a Government servant has a right to hold or lien upon the post, mere fact of termination of his service will be deemed to be penal, whether any reason therefor is assigned or not. On the other hand, termination of service of such Government Servant who lids no right to or lien upon the post held by him, without assigning any reason, will not be ipso facto penal. A government servant appointed to hold a post, temporary or substantive, on temporary basis, acquires no right to or lien upon the post. Therefore, mere termination of such Government servant, except in case or fixed term appointment, without assigning any reason, will not be deemed to be penal. "

( 7 ) WE are of the opinion that the argument does not hold good since the writ petitioners employment was not for a fixed term. His employment was for a probationary period of three months with a legitimate expectation, since he had gone through the preliminary process of selection, that his services would be made permanent at the end of three months, if nothing adverse were found against him. The argument that the wet petitioners employment was for a fixed term confuses the preliminary probationary period with an employment which is itself for fixed term. From the very beginning, there were knowledge and expectation on both sides that the fixed said term would, in all likelihood of reasonable future even not be extended at all, but change into something permanent. The second argument of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document