HANUMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, claims to have been appointed on 1-11-1991 as Class IV employee in Rajkiya Ayurvedic and Unani Chikitsalaya, Deoria. From the perusal of the impugned order, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 3, it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed for a period of three months. By a subsequent order, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, he was given appointment again for a fixed term of three months. It appears, that petitioners have not been permitted to work thereafter. They claim to have made a representation for their continuance in service and having received no response from the respondents, they have filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 17/18-6-1992 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) whereby directions have been issued by the Head Quarter against appointment of ad-hoc/daily wages employee.

(2.) PETITIONERS' appointment was for a fixed term. As held by Supreme Court in the case of Director Institute of Management Development, U. P. v. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070, a person appointed for a fixed term has no right to be regularised and has no right to continue after expiry of the term because the appointment was for fixed term which came to an end by efflux of time. In such case question of regularisation of an employee also does not arise.