- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-5-1997 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1973 of 1997 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and on ad hoc basis and as such the petitioner did not have a right to the post.
(2.) IT is the case of the appellant writ petitioner that under the Scheme of Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar launched by the Government with the co-operation of the World Bank for development of the poor village children, the petitioner was appointed as an 'aanganbari Karyakarti' on temporary basis vide order dated 25-7-1996 issued by respondent No. 2, Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, (C. D. P. O.) Pardaha, District Mau. IT was clearly specified in the appointment letter that the writ petitioner- appellant would only be paid honorarium and could be terminated at any time without any notice. By the order dated 6- 1-1997 of respondent No. 2, the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, hence the petitioner challenged the said order in the aforesaid writ petition. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials on record as well as the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. We do not find any justifiable reason for interference in this appeal. In our view, the temporary appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant as an 'aanganbari karyakarti', purely on ad hoc basis under a Scheme of the World Bank, cannot be termed as a service. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was only paid honorarium and not any salary. There are also no service rules under which the writ petitioner claims that she is entitled to continue. The scheme under which the writ petitioner has been appointed has also not been placed before us nor had the same been filed alongwith the writ petition. Dr. R. G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant writ petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court rendered in Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and others, JT 1998 (6) SC 464 and Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 309. The said cases relate to teachers who were appointed under some Statute governing their service. It was under such circumstances that it was held that the principles of natural justice were required to be followed prior to the cancellation of their appointments. In the present case, since the appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant had not been made under any Statute, and it was a purely temporary appointment on ad hoc basis on payment of honorarium, the same cannot be equated with regular service governed by an Act and Rules. Thus the ratio of the said decision would not apply to the facts of the present case.
(3.) IN the end Dr. R. G. Padia placed before us an interim order granted by this Court in the case of some identically situated persons and submitted that the learned single Judge, instead of dismissing the writ petition, ought to have followed the same. He has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 307, wherein it has been held that it is a well- settled principle of judicial discipline that if a single Judge disagrees with the decision of another single Judge, it is proper to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative decision. IN our view, the said decision would not be of any help to the writ petitioner-appellant as there can be no parity claimed in the case of an interim order, which cannot be termed as a decision of the Court. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .;