RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(2.) THE above writ petition is directed against the order dated 18 -3 -1999 dispensing with the services of the petitioner. According to the respondents petitioner was appointed purely on ad -hoc and temporary basis on a fixed salary. At the time of admission, the following interim order was granted on 22 -4 1999 in favour of the petitioner : Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel for the respondents. Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed two months time to file counter -affidavit. Three weeks thereafter the petitioner shall file rejoinder affidavit. List in third week of August, 1999. Until further orders of this Court the operation of the impugned order dated 18 -3 -1999 shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be continued to his services and be paid his salary till regular selection is made on the post in question. S/d V.M. Sahai, J. 22 -4 -1999. The Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on 24 -9 -1990 on ad -hoc basis as registration clerk on a fixed salary of Rs. 1,000 month. The service of the petitioner was extended from time to time according to the exigencies of work. In Para 16 of the writ petition it has been stated that impugned order dated 18 -3 -1999 passed by respondent terminating his services was uncalled for as the post was lying vacant and no regular selection had been made till then.
(3.) THE apex Court in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development v. Puspha Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070, has held that any person, appointed on ad -hoc basis has no vested right for being regularised or appointed on permanent basis. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below: 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 regulars 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. ;