ARUN KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 6 -12 -1988, petitioner was appointed as Instructor on daily wages basis at the rate of Rs. 20/ - per day for a period of six months. His services were terminated after expiry of six months by order dated 26 -6 -1989. Petitioner was again appointed on the same post on the same basis by order dated 3 -7 -1989 for a period of six months and after six months his services were terminated. By letter dated 9 -1 -1990 petitioner was again appointed for six months on daily wages. After expiry of the aforesaid period by letter dated 6/7 -7 -1990 services of the petitioner have been terminated. It is against this order that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the termination of service on two grounds; (i) that some juniors have been retained while the services of the petitioner have been terminated, and (ii) the post is still vacant. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing the respondents. Petitioner was not holding any post in the regular cadre. He was appointed on daily wages basis for a fixed period. After expiry of the fixed term, his appointment came to an end automatically. It is not a case of termination of service in the real sense of the term. The appointments which are made for a fixed term come to an end automatically after expiry of the term unless extended. The petitioner thus cannot succeed on the ground that his juniors are still working.

(2.) REGARDING the other plea it may be mentioned that this court cannot direct the appointment of the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner, in case the respondents want to fill up the vacancy, to apply for the same and in case the petitioner applies his case may be considered according to law. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.