HEMANT N MOHITE Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Prayer has been made by the petitioner in this special civil application for quashing and setting aside the order of termination of his services and for further direction to respondents to reinstate the petitioner with effect from 31-1-85 and 30-4-1985 respectively with continuity of service, full backwages and all other consequential benefits. From the statement which has been filed by the petitioner at annexure-A I find that the petitioner was given fixed term appointment from time to time, in the year 1982, 1983, 1984and 1985. All these appointments were fixed term and they came to an end by afflux of time. The petitioner has not filed on the record of this special civil application the order of termination of his services. He could not have filed this document as it was fixed term appointment which had come to an end by afflux of time. The grievance of the petitioner is that it was only a trick which has been played by the respondents. Otherwise he continued to work for all these years. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the appointment was purely temporary and on ad hoc basis. It is also not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner was not made in accordance with rules which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. So it is a case of appointment of the petitioner de hors the rules, purely ad hoc, temporary and for fixed term. Such appointment does not confer any right, much less right to continue in employment. On the basis of the said appointment the petitioner cannot claim any right of regularisation in the employment. These are appointments which have been given to the petitioner from time to time and can conveniently be put in the category of "back door entries". Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhanmati Tapubhai Muliya vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 2 GLH 228, held that temporary / adhoc appointments given for fixed term come to an end by afflux of time and for discontinuation of such appointments no order of termination is required to be made. It has further been held by Division Bench in the aforesaid case that no notice or opportunity of hearing is required to be given to an employee belonging to such category before terminating his services. So it cannot be said to be, strictly speaking, a case of termination of service of the petitioner as alleged by him in the special civil application, for the reason that all the time he was given only fixed term temporary/ ad hoc appointment.

(3.) On the record of this special civil application the respondents produced sufficient material to show that regular appointments have been made in the office of the respondent in accordance with recruitment rules. In view of this fact that regularly selected candidates have already been made available, otherwise also the petitioner has no case whatsoever.