RAMJI LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated February 1, 1986 the petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Deoria. His appointment was on ad hoc basis for a period of one year or till the candidate selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') joins the post, whichever is earlier. Although the petitioner's ad hoc appointment was for limited period, but he was allowed to continue alongwith other Ayurvedic. Medical Officers on ad hoc basis. The petitioner was considered for regularisation of service but he was not found suitable. His service was accordingly terminated vide order dated March 31, 1992. Being aggrieved by it he has filed this writ petition.

(2.) The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the service of ad hoc Government servants cannot be terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work/performance unless he has been given an opportunity to explain and to improve his work, and in the instant case no such opportunity has been given to the petitioner. Sri Vinay Malviya, learned Standing Counsel, has disputed the said contentions and has further submitted that the petitioner's service has been terminated because he was not found suitable for regularisation by the Selection Committee.

(3.) In the State of Uttar Pradesh rules known as U.P. Regularisation of ad hoc Appointments (On Post within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') have been framed providing for consideration of cases of the Government servants appointed on ad hoc basis for regularisation of their service. Rule 4 which provides for regularisation of ad hoc appointment, is reproduced below :