KM POONAM BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The grievance of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Lecturer vide appointment letter dated 11.10.2007 in Dayalbagh Educational Institute (Deemed University) at Agra. Though the said appointment was for a period of one year being a fixed term temporary appointment but the petitioner is entitled to continue even thereafter since no person on the regular basis has been appointed on the said post.

(2.) HOWEVER, I do not find any substance in the submission for the reason that the petitioner has no legal right to continue beyond the term of his appointment letter. The appointment letter clearly provides as under :

(3.) IT is not in dispute that as per the terms of appointment, engagement of the petitioner was only for a particular session and by efflux of time the same would come to an end. The question is whether the petitioner can claim a right to continue in institution despite the aforesaid condition of appointment. The letter of appointment in effect would already lose its efficacy by efflux of time that it would suo motu lapse on expiry of tenure. Whether the petitioner in such circumstance can be directed to continue even beyond that is the moot question to be considered and answered here. In my view reply would be in negative. The appointment of the petitioner being for a fixed tenure, she has no right to continue beyond the period indicated in the letter of appointment. IT is evident that the appointment made is time bound. Extension of appointment by judicial order therefore is not permissible. A similar controversy came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Alok Kumar Singh (Dr.) and 15 others v. State of U. P. and others, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1373 : 2002 (3) AWC 1859, wherein it has been held that the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue in service beyond the period of appointment provided in the letter of appointment.