Full Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. The above writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.3.1999, dispensing with the services of the petitioner. According to the respondents petitioner was appointed purely on ad hoc and temporary basis on a fixed salary. At the time of admission, the following interim order was granted on 22.4.1999 in favour of the petitioner :
'Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed two months time to file counter-affidavit. Three weeks thereafter the petitioner shall file rejoinder-affidavit.
List in third week of August, 1999.
Until further orders of this Court the operation of the impugned order 18.3.1999 shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be continued to his services and be paid his salary till regular selection is made on the post in question.
(S/d.) V.M. Sahai, J.
2.4.1999.'
3. The Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on 24.9.1990 on ad hoc basis as Registration Clerk on a fixed salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. The service of the petitioner was extended from time to time according to the exigencies of work. In Para 16 of the writ petition it has been stated that impugned order dated 18.3.1999 passed by respondent terminating his services was uncalled for as the post was lying vacant and no regular selection had been till then.
4. The Apex Court in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development v. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070, has held that any person, appointed on ad hoc basis has no vested right for being regularised or appointed on permanent basis. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below :--
'The appointment was purely ad hoc and on a contractual basis for a limited period. Therefore, by expiry of the period of six months, the right to remain in the post comes to an end.
To our mind, it is clear that where the appointment is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the respondent could have no right to continue in the post. Once, this conclusion is arrived at, what regulars to be examined is, in view of the services of the respondent being continued from time to time on ad hoc basis for more than a year whether she is entitled to regularization? The answer should be in the negative.'
5. If a person is appointed for a fixed term on contractual basis, his tenure comes to an end automatically by efflux of time and he is not entitled to continue thereafter, hence any further question for regularization of service of the employee docs not arise.
6. Standing Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that regular appointment on the post, on which petitioner was working, could be made only in accordance with U.P. Registration Department Ministerial (Headquarters and Establishments) Services Rules, 1979, which prescribe procedure for recruitment of permanent employees under Rule 18(2) of the said Rules. The Appointing Authority has power to make appointment on ad hoc basis as temporary measure for a period not exceeding six months and as such any appointment on ad hoc basis, made in the department cannot be valid beyond the period of six months. Govt. of U.P. has also framed Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments Rules, 1979, as amended in 1989 for governing Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments. Rule 4 of these Rules provides that in order to get benefit of regulansation, an employee must have been appointed on the concerned post on or before 1.10.1986 and he must have been continued on the post as such till enforcement of the Rules i.e., 7.8.1989. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed after 1st October. 1986, therefore, petitioner cannot be said to be in service on or before 1st October. 1986 and he lacked mandatory eligibility conditions for regularization.
7. The Government has also framed U.P. (Outside Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission Regularization of Dailywage Employee Appointment on Group C Posts) Rules, 1998. The petitioner was also not a dailywager employee; therefore, he cannot get benefit of these Rules. Since, the petitioner's appointment was purely on ad hoc basis, his conditions of services are governed by Temporary Government Servant Termination of Services Rules, 1974. Accordingly, his services could be terminated after giving one month's notice or one month pay in lieu thereof, which has been complied with in the instant case. There is also no procedural irregularity in the impugned order. In Para 3-H of the counter-affidavit it has been averred by the respondents that process for regular appointment has already begun. This counter-affidavit was filed in the year 1999. Regular selection must have been made by respondent by now, therefore, he cannot have any benefit of the interim order. In any case, petitioner has no right on the post, as discussed above.
8. For reasons stated above, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.