Hon’ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J.—Both these special appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.5.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 5293 (SS) of 2001 - Ram Naresh Singh v. U.P. State Social Welfare Advisory Board Lucknow and others and 5294 (SS) of 2001 - Govind Sharma v. U.P. State Social Welfare Advisory Board Lucknow and others.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of the aforesaid special appeals are that the appellants/petitioners were initially appointed on ad hoc basis on a fixed monthly amount/honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month and later on vide order dated 29.4.1993, it was again modified as Rs. 1300/- per month. The appellants/petitioners were engaged in service for short term till continuity of approval from the Central Social Welfare Board and further on condition that in case such approval is not received, the appointment would itself come to an end.

3. The record reveals that a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants/petitioners to show-cause as to why their appointments should not be cancelled and the reply was kept pending by the appellants/petitioners and vide order dated 22.8.2001, the appointment of the appellants/petitioners was cancelled and they were removed from service. Writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 5293 (SS) of 2001 - Ram Naresh Singh v. U.P. State Social Welfare Advisory Board Lucknow and others and 5294 (SS) of 2001 - Govind Sharma v. U.P. State Social Welfare Advisory Board Lucknow and others were filed before this Court and the learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties dismissed the petitions, thus, the aforesaid special appeals.

4. A common question arises in both the special appeals is as to whether the appellants/petitioners were legally appointed on the post or as to whether they have a right to hold the post.

5. The version of the appellants/petitioners is that they were regularly discharging their duties and functions as per office rules but their services have been terminated without any rhyme and reason or without giving them any opportunity of hearing.

6. We have not been apprised of the specific terms and conditions subject to which the petitioners were employed or engaged but from the perusal of the records and from the tenor of the pleadings and other records and counter-affidavit, it can be safely inferred that the appellants/petitioners were appointed/engaged on purely temporary contractual basis on a fixed honorarium and for a fixed term and there will be no claim or parity with other persons. The appellants/petitioners, who entered into this contractual agreement to serve the opposite parties and applied for the post, must have been aware of the fact that they were being engaged/employed on a fixed term and on honorarium basis. The appointment was not against the post sanctioned by the Government and thus they will have no right to claim either for absorption in the service or to be regularized in the service. They must have accepted the appointments of their engagement knowing fully well that they will have fixed tenure without any right to be continued in the service or on a fixed honorarium.

7. Admittedly, the appellants/petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis without following the procedure of appointment under the rules. It is settled proposition of law that any appointment against a public post paid from the State Exchequer, made without following the procedure, would be in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. The power to prescribe the condition of service can be exercised either by making Rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or any analogous provision and in the absence of such Rules, under the instructions issued in exercise of its executive power. The jurisdiction of the Court comes into the picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights and statutory provisions, rules and other instructions, if any, gove