M. Kathu, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed on casual basis from 2nd January, 1985 to May, 1985 in the service of the respondent No. 1. Thereafter he was appointed on 24-7-1985 and continued till 30-11-1986. He was again appointed on 9-12-1985 for six months. On 2-6-1986 he was again appointed for six months and continues from time to time and his last extension expired on 6-11-1989. The petitioner has made a representation for continuing in service but to no avail. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) Petitioner has relied on U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (on Posts within Purview of U. P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board (1st Amendment) Regulation, 1990 and on the basis of this Regulation he has claimed regularisation. I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to regularisation because Rules of the 1990 Regulations clearly states that it applies only to those employees working on the date of commencement of the Regulations. The Regulation came into force in 1990 while the petitioners services, came to an end on 6-11-1989. Hence he is not entitled to the benefit of regularisation. As held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore, (1991) 1 SCC 691 : (1991) 1 UPLBEC 152 (SC) and Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State, AIR 1992 SC 496 : (1992) 1 UPLBEC 41 (SC) a temporary employee has no right to hold the post. There is no force in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
(3.) A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within three days. Petition dismissed.;