SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide Government Order dated November 7, 1990 Family Court at Agra was established for the period upto February 28, 1991. For that Court 13 posts, including six posts of Class IV employees, were sanctioned and these posts were also to continue upto February 28, 1991. The petitioner appeared in the test for appointment to the post of copyist on ad hoc basis and was selected and appointed ad hoc copyist in the Family Court at Agra on April 12, 1991. There was also a post of stenographer for the Court and no stenographer having been selected, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as stenographer vide order dated May 1, 1991 for fixed term upto June 30, 1991, with the condition that the appointment of the petitioner will come to an end automatically on June 30, 1991, if not terminated earlier. It was also stipulated in the appointment letter that the service of the petitioner can be terminated at any time without any prior notice. Service of the petitioner, as stenographer, was extended from time to time. By every order of extension the service of the petitioner was extended for fixed term with the same terms and conditions, as was contained in original appointment order dated May 1, 1991. By the last order, the petitioner was appointed for fixed period upto February 28, 1992. Thereafter the petitioner's services were not extended although he has worked upto March 26, 1992, even though the period of the posts sanctioned for Family Court, Agra, was extended beyond February 28, 1992. The petitioner thereafter filed a Writ Petition No. 14969 of 1992 before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to continue him as ad hoc stenographer till regular selection is made for the post. In this writ petition this Court, on April 25, 1992, passed the following interim order: "In the meantime petitioner will be allowed to continue on ad hoc post till duly selected candidate is available for the said post and he will also be entitled for his salary."

(2.) An advertisement was issued on May 23, 1992 inviting applications for regular selection for the post of stenographer. Petitioner, thereafter, filed Writ Petition No. 20223 of 1992, challenging the above advertisement and praying for writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to make any selection and not to interfere with his working as ad hoc stenographer. In that writ petition this Court passed the following interim order, on June 8, 1992: "Until further orders interview fixed for June 11, 1992 in pursuance of the notice, filed as Annexure SA-1, shall remain stayed." As will be clear from the facts stated herein-above, the petitioner was not selected as stenographer and was only selected as copyist but was appointed on fixed term as stenographer upto February 28, 1992. Thereafter his appointment has not been extended, although he worked upto March 26, 1992. After this Court granted interim order on April 25, 1992, the petitioner was permitted by Judge, Family Court to work as stenographer, in compliance of this Court's order, and he is to continue till duly selected candidate joins. By filing the second writ petition he has blocked the selection of the candidate with the result that the petitioner is to continue on ad hoc basis, without there being any appointment after February 28, 1992 in his favour for working as Stenographer in the Family Court at Agra.

(3.) Petitioner's appointment was for fixed term initially upto June 30, 1991 and thereafter his term was extended upto July 31, 1991. Period of his appointment was again extended upto September 30, 1991 and it continued upto February 28, 1992 with the condition that his appointment will come to an end on the last date of term automatically. When appointments made on fixed term it comes to an end automatically by efflux of time and the appointee has thereafter no right to continue to work on the post. In this connection reference may be made to the decision in Director, Institute of Management Development U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivas-tava wherein the Supreme Court has laid down as follows 1993-I-LLJ-190 at 193-194): "The appointment was purely ad hoc and on a contractual basis for a limited period. Therefore, by expiry of the period of six months, the right to remain in the post comes to an end."