- (1.) Petitioner was appointed by order dated 24-4-1991 as Stenographer in the office of S D.M. (Pargana Adhikari), Sadar, Mahrajganj District Mahrajganj, for a period upto 30-6-1991 with the conditions that the appointment is purely temporary and it can be terminated at any time without any notice. After the expiry of the above period the appointment of the Petitioner was extended from time to time but always for fixed period on the same terms and conditions. The last order whereby, the Petitioner was again appointed was for a fixed term from 2-7-1992 to 31-8-1992 on the same conditions. After the expiry of the term Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the Government Circular dated 2-9-1992 and praying for writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to appoint him as Stenographer on regular basis. Further prayer for treating him as Class III employee on the pay scale of 1200-2040 has also been made.
(2.) From the perusal of the appointment letter it is apparent that the appointment of the Petitioner was contractual for a fixed term with the conditions that his services can be terminated at any time without any notice. Supreme Court in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development v. Pushpa Srivastava, 1992 AIR(SC) 2070, relevant extract of which is reproduced below, has laid down that where appointment is contractual for a fixed term, employee has no right to continue after the expiry of the term; The appointment was purely adhoc and on a contractual basis for a limited period. Therefore, by expiry of the period of six months, the right to remain in the post comes to an end. xxx xxx xxx To our mind, it is clear that where the appointment is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the Respondent could have no right to continue in the post. Once this conclusion is arrived at, what requires to be examined is, in view of 'he services of the Respondent being continued from time to time on 'ad hoc' basis for more than a year whether she is entitled to regularisation ? The answer should be in the negative.
(3.) In view of the position as laid down by Supreme Court the Petitioner has no right to continue after expiry of his term which came to an end on 31-8-1992. Question of termination of his service after the above date does not arise because he has ceased to be in service thereafter. So far as the Circular dated 2-9-1992 is concerned it has not terminated the Petitioner's service. His appointment came to an end by efflux of time.;