BIMAL PRASAD PATTNAIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs :

(2.) THE undisputed facts, without unnecessary details, are that the petitioner was appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days as a Typist in the office of the Eastern Regional Committee, National Council of Teachers Education, Bhubaneswar by the order of appointment under Annexure - 2 and continued from time to time in different spells with break in service and ultimately by office order dated 11.1.1999, a copy of which is Annexure - 21, the petitioner was engaged as Lower Division Clerk on a consolidated wage of Rs. 2,000/ - with effect from 11.1.1999 to 10.2.1999 or till further orders, whichever is earlier, with the condition that the engagement will not confer on him any right or claim for regular appointment against the post in the office and the engagement can be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason thereof and will stand terminated on the afternoon of 10.2.1999 automatically. Being apprehensive of termination, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 11.1.1999. It is submitted by the petitioner that he having been selected by a process of selection through a duly constituted selection committee in December, 1995 and continuously worked in the post during these period, he was entitled to be regularised in the service and the order under Annexure -21, which contemplates automatic termination is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has averred that in the month of June, 1997, a selection was made for filling up of the post of L.D.C., wherein the petitioner has appeared at the interview, but with ulterior motive, no appointment order was issued to the petitioner, even if he was selected and recommended for the post. The selection was kept in abeyance or stood cancelled, without any notice to the petitioner for the reasons best known to the authorities. However, the petitioner asserts that he continued to discharge his duties continuously in spite of the artificial breaks in his appointment order and therefore the selection made by the authorities to fill up the post of L.D.C. through the sponsored candidates from Employment Exchange depriving the petitioner of his right of regularisation is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has made several allegations against the authorities alleging mala fides, but we need not go into those facts since such allegations are on the basis of surmises.

(3.) LAW is well settled that a temporary, ad hoc or daily wage appointment made to man the post pending regular recruitment through the process of selection in terms of the recruitment rules, does not confer any right on the incumbent to be regularised, since the authorities are bound to make the selection in terms of the recruitment rues. Any appointment de hors the rules does not confer any right for regularisation.