VINOD Vs. DISTT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, both these petitions were heard together finally.

(2.) THE petitioners were working as adhoc lower Division Clerks in the Subordinate Courts in District Pratapgarh. On 1.2.94, the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis for a period of one year Under Rule 23(3) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. In the appointment orders, it was stated that a test was taken to test efficiency in Hindi and English typing and the petitioners were found up to the mark. It was also stated in the appointment letter that the petitioners shall appear and clear the examination which may be taken for regular recruitment and shall also clear the typing test within one year, If they fail in the regular recruitment test, their services shall be liable to be terminated without notice. The District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on 23.1.95 authorised the Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate I class, under him to terminate the services of petitioner Mukesh Kumar on his completion of the period of one year of appointment. Similar orders were issued in respect of other petitioners. The petitioners contention is that they have right to be continued till regular selection takes place. It is contended that in some other Districts of Rajasthan, such appointments have been continued till regular selections are made. It is also contended that three persons, who were appointed after the petitioner on 14.2.94, 4.5.94 and 5.5.94 respectively were continued in service and thus, the last come first go rule was violated. It is also contended that if the District Judge did not hold a regular selection test within a period of one year, the petitioners who were ready to take such test cannot be made to suffer. A single Bench decision of this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 4563/92 decided on 9.2.93, Ku. Basant Hisaria v. State of Rajasthan, as also a Division Bench decision of this Court in Anita Kothari v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(1) RLR 87 were pressed into service. The decisions in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Pyara Singh, : (1993)IILLJ937SC , Beer Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1345 and Sunder Das v. Collector, Thane, : [1990]183ITR130(SC) were also referred to.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel, I am of the view that this petition does not deserve to be allowed. The appointment was clearly for a fixed period and whether to continue that any further is up to the employer. There cannot be any vested right in such matters. As regards the continuation of the appointment on sympathetic grounds, suffice it to say that a relief under Article 226 can be claimed on the basis of a vested right and not on the basis of sympathy. As regards the decisions cited, both the single bench decision of this Court and the Division Bench decision are distinguishable on facts. In Ku.Basant Hisaria's case (supra) the appointment was initially for a period of three months or till passing of competitive examination to be held by the Distt. and Sessions Judge, whichever was earlier. That term was extended for another two months or till the availability of regularly selected persons, whichever was earlier. In the present case, the appointments do not contain any other contingencies, but the expiry of period of one year. Actually, in this decision, the learned Judge has spoken of exercise of power to terminate the services of such temporary employees. In the present case, infact no termination order was necessary because the appointment itself was for a fixed term of one year, after which even without any order of termination the employment had to come to an end. Infact, for the continuation of such employee beyond the period of one year, a fresh appointment order was necessary and, therefore, the decision in Ku. Basant Hisaria is distinguishable on facts. So far as Division Bench decision in Anita Kothari's case in concerned there the petitioners were continued in employment for more than seven years by giving them appointment every year. This is not the case here. There is no scope for applying doctrine of legitimate expectation as the appointment order clearly stated that it was for one year and was not renewed thereafter for even once. The decision, therefore, can have no relevance in the circumstances of this case.