STATE OF U P Vs. UMESH CHANDRA JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal dated 2.2.1993. The respondent No. 1 was a purely temporary employee. It is settled law that a temporary employee has no right to the post. There is nothing to show that the respondent No. 1 was regular appointee appointed after a regular selection. Hence, he cannot, claim to be continued in service.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent No. 1 was not given a written order of termination, and this was one of the grounds given by the Tribunal for allowing the claim petition. We are of the opinion that a termination order can be oral, particularly in respect of temporary/ casual or ad hoc employees. Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that one month's notice pay was not given. It is settled law that even if one month's notice or notice pay was not given, the termination order would not become illegal on that account.