LAWS(ALL)-2002-4-183

DHARMENDRA KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On April 02, 2002
DHARMENDRA KUMAR TIWARI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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.