Delhi High Court
Satya Prakash Vermani vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors. on 14 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: 63(1996)DLT150
JUDGMENT M.K. Sharma, J.
(1) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.3.1996 issued by the Principal, Birla Vidya Niketan, Pushp Vihar, Sector Iv, New Delhi, informing the petitioner that it would not be possible for the management to renew the contract of the petitioner which was expiring on 3.5.1996. By the aforesaid letter the Principal requested the petitioner to explore other possibilities of his employment elsewhere. The petitioner was given appointment by order dated 11.7.1995 for teaching assignment in the Birla Vidya Niketan, Pushp Vihar, Sector- Iv, New Delhi. The petitioner was appointed to the post of teacher at a consolidated pay of Rs. 3,600.00 . Under the said letter it was made clear that the said appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary on ad hoc basis effective from 13.7.1995 to 3.5.1996. The aforesaid offer of the School Authority was accepted by the petitioner without any reservation and he joined the post and was serving in the school till the aforesaid impugned letter dated 31.3.1996 was received by him.
(2) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the order of appointment dated 11.7.1995 is not in accordance with the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules framed thereunder. According to him the initial appointment could not have been on temporary, ad hoc basis and it should have been for a period on probation. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that his services could not have been terminated without obtaining the approval from the Director of Education.
(3) The order of appointment of the petitioner dated 11.7.1995 is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The contents of the said letter show that the petitioner was offered the appointment in the post of teacher on a consolidated pay and the said appointment offerred to the petitioner was purely temporary and on ad hoc basis effective for a limited period. The petitioner accepted the said appointment without any reservation. Having accepted the appointment and having served in the school for the limited period specified in the said letter dated 11.7.1995, the petitioner cannot have the right to challenge the validity of the said order as the same is barred under the principles of waiver and estoppel. Besides, the entire right of the petitioner, if any, to claim for continuation/regularization in the said post is based on that letter and therefore, the foundation of the right if held to be bad and illegal, the petitioner cannot claim any right for continuation as well. The aforesaid appointment of the petitioner in the school was purely on ad hoc basis and as a temporary measure and it was for a limited period. With the expiry of the specified period the petitioner cannot have any further right to continue in the school. In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, , it has been held by the Supreme Court that when the appointment is on ad hoc basis and for a limited period the right of the petitioner to hold the post expires with the expiry of the limited period and thereafter the petitioner has no further right to continue in the said post.
(4) Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision and on the reasons given herein above, in my opinion the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.