DEENABEN RAMANLAL TAILOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner had applied for regular selection on the post of Clerk in the recruitment process undertaken for the year 1982-1983. The petitioner was not selected for the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis for the post of Copying Clerk for a fixed period in the year 1983. It is the case of the petitioner that such period of appointment came to be extended from time to time, and ultimately, vide order dated 06. 04. 1990, the petitioner was communicated that the time period of appointment has expired on 08. 04. 1990 and therefore, she should be relieved accordingly. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from the appointment and under these circumstances, the petitioner preferred the present petition for setting aside the order dated 06. 04. 1990 for putting an end of her service and it is also prayed by her that to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to her original post with full backwages and continuity in service w. e. f. 01. 10. 1983.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Patel for the petitioner and Mr. Raval, learned AGP for the respondents.

(3.) IT is an admitted position that the petitioner has been selected at the regular selection process and she was on the contrary not selected for the post of Clerk. No regular recruitment process has been undertaken for the post of Copying Clerk over which the petitioner was appointed for temporary period. It may be that due to exigency and requirement, the respondents might have continued the petitioner from time to time, but such would not invest any right in favour of the petitioner to the treatment as regularly selected candidate nor as to be absorbed on the post of selected candidate. When the petitioner was appointed only on temporary basis and not by way of regular selection, merely because the petitioner is continued for some years, would not invest any right in the public employment. Such can only be termed as a back door entry which would not create any right in favour of such person concerned. The law is by now well settled. The reference may be made to the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported at (2007) 1 SCC 408, wherein the view taken is that temporary employee has no right to the post like permanent employee. It has also been observed that if an employee is not appointed by following a regular selection process and is appointed for temporary period, such would not invest any right for regularisation by way of substitution to the recruitment process. If on account of the non-requirement of the work, the temporary engagement is not continued or is not renewed upon the expiry of the period, and such employee is relieved upon expiry of such period, the action cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.