- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner was appointed as Collection Amin in Tehsil Amroha of District Jyotiba Phoole Nagar on 30-7-1997.
(2.) IT is alleged that in Tehsil Amroha of District Jyotiba Phoole Nagar, seven substantive posts of Collection peons fallen vacant due to the transfer as well as retirement of Class IV employees. The petitioner alongwith other candidates submitted application for appointment on the post of Collection Peons in the aforesaid Tehsil and was appointed alongwith six other persons on 30-6-1997, approval to the appointment was also granted by respondent No. 2, who is the Appointing Authority. The appointment of the petitioners was for a short period and was wholly temporary in nature, initially for 45 days. Which was to come to an end after due expiry of aforesaid period. It appears that the post of Collection Amin could not be filled up by regular appointment and as such appointment of the petitioner was extended for a period of 45 days vide letter dated 1-8-1997, 20-9- 1997 and 8-11-1995 and he continued for about 2 years. The allegation of the petitioner is that though he is continuously working for about 2 years, his services have been terminated by orally order after the last extension. Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of State. It is contended by the Standing Counsel that the petitioner alongwith other candidates applied for temporary posts of Collection Peons in Tehsil Amroha and it was not continuous. It is further submitted that petitioners had applied for against permanent and substantive posts. The appointment was for specified period as such no prior notices was called for this purpose and the petitioner has no legal right or lien over the post. The appointment of the petitioner was purely ad hoc in order to meet the exigency of the work.
(3.) IN the case of Director, INstitute of Management Development v. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070, has held that: - "the appointment was purely ad hoc 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. 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 required to be examined is, in view of the services of the respondent being continued from time to time on ad hoc basis for more than a year whether she is entitled to regularization? The answer should be in the negative. " In the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1992 SC 789, has held that merely because an employee has worked for 240 days, he is not entitled to regularization. Same principle has been reiterated in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130.;