M. Katju, J. - (1.) PETITIONER was appointed in August, 1979 as Nate on daily wage and he continued working till 1 -10 -88 He was again appointed on ad hoc basis vide appointment order dated 1 -10 -88 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition and thereafter also the Petitioner kept working until the impugned order dated 18 -2 -89 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) was passed cancelling his appointment. Aggrieved the Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 18 -2 -89 cancelling his appointment on ad hoc basis. I have perused the record and also heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THERE is no dispute that the Petitioner has worked continuously for almost 10 years from 1979 to 1989. The Petitioner's work has also been found to be good as is evident from the certificate of the Executive Engineer dated 2 -6 -88 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). In the counter affidavit it has been alleged in para 5 that there is no vacancy and hence the Petitioner's service was terminated. I am not prepared to accept the bald allegation that there is no vacancy particularly since the Petitioner was working for almost 10 years continuously and no G.O abolishing the post has been produced. Moreover, the allegation in para 5 of the counter affidavit is that there was no necessity to continue the Petitioner's ad hoc appointment, and not that there is no vacancy. The impugned termination order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing end in an arbitrary manner There is no allegation in the counter affidavit that the work of the Petitioner has not been good In my opinion when a person has worked for a long period it will be wholly arbitrary to terminate his services without affording any opportunity of hearing to the employee or without a proper justification for such termination. No doubt the Supreme Court has held in State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore : 1991 (1) SCC 691 and Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State, 1992 (1) SLR 359, that a temporary employee has no right to hold the post -However, even in the case of temporary employees the State cannot act arbitrarily, for arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution vide Shrilekha Vidharti v. State : AIR 1991 SC 537.
(3.) THERE are a large number of departments where unfortunately employees are kept in a temporary capacity for long years after appointment and sometimes they even retire without even being confirmed. This is a wholly undesirable state of affairs since a man must have reasonable job security to function efficiently. To keep a damocles sword hanging over a person's head for years after appointment is hardly the way to bring the best out of him.;