Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)AWC2132, [2002(93)FLR894], (2002)2UPLBEC1451
Author: M. Katju
Bench: M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari
JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1, Sri Neeraj Tripathi for respondent No. 5 and Sri Reghavendra Dwivedi for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
2. The petitioner was appointed vide appointment order dated 1.4.2000 in a purely ad hoc capacity as Tax Officer in the service of Zila Panchayat. Allahabad. The appointment order itself states that the petitioner's appointment is ad hoc and for a maximum period of one year, it further states that the appointment is purely temporary and can be terminated at any time. Thereafter the petitioner's service was extended in ad hoc capacity for one year from 1.4.2001 or till regularly selected candidate was available, whichever was earlier, fide order dated 23.7.2001. Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thus, this extension order dated 23.7.2001 continued the petitioner's service only till 31.3.2002.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a right to continue till a regularly selected candidate is available for the post. We do not agree with this submission. There is no such legal principle that a temporary employee has a right to continue on the post till a regularly selected candidate is available for that post. Rather, the legal position is just the reverse, namely, that a temporary employee has no right to the post, and hence he has no right to continue even if the post continues to exist. An ad hoc appointee' is also a temporary appointee. The expression 'temporary appointee' is a general expression under which there are several sub-categories, e.g.. casual appointee, daily wage appointee, ad hoc appointee and even a probationer. All such sub-categories fall within the general category of a temporary appointee, as contrasted to a permanent appointee. The legal position is that a temporary appointee has no right to the post and it is not correct to say that a temporary appointee has a right to continue till a regularly selected candidate is available for the post.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice certain interim orders passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court vide Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition. These are interim orders and hence are no precedents. The law is well-settled by the Supreme Court in various decisions that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore, 1991 (1) AWC 651 (SC) : 1991 (1) SCC 691. Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 496 etc. Since the law has been clearly laid down on this point by the Supreme Court, anything contrary held by the Lucknow Bench of this Court is not good law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then invited our attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Shiv Chandra Misra v. District Inspector of Schools, 1986 UPLBEC 248, where on interpreting Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982, it was held that a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis has a right to continue till a regularly selected candidate is available. We are of the opinion that this decision is only on the interpretation of Section 18 of the aforesaid Act, and hence the principle laid down therein has to be confined to teachers of Intermediate Colleges appointed in ad hoc capacity under Section 18, but no universal principle can be derived from the aforesaid decision that every ad hoc appointee in any service must be allowed to continue till a regularly selected candidate is available. The correct position, as already stated above, is just the reverse.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then invited our attention to Rule 33A of the Zila Panchayat (Central Transferable Cadre) Rules. 1966 which states :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the State Government may also make ad hoc appointments or temporary officiating arrangements for the posts falling vacant substantively or temporarily."
7. In our opinion, this rule does not help the petitioner because it only states that the Government may also make ad hoc appointments or temporary officiating arrangements for the posts falling vacant substantively or temporarily. This rule does not say that such ad hoc or temporary appointee has a right to continue till a regularly selected candidate is available. Rather, as held by the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishore's case and Triveni Shankar Saxena's case (supra) a temporary or ad hoc appointee has no right to continue even for a single day as he has no right to the post.
8. For the reasons given above, this petition fails and is dismissed. However, if the petitioner makes a representation for extension of his service, that may be considered and decided by the appropriate authority expeditiously in accordance with law.