R.A.Sharma - (1.) PETITIONER, claims to have been appointed on 1-11-1991 as Class IV employee in Rajkiya Ayurvedic and Unani Chikitsalaya, Deoria. From the perusal of the impugned order, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 3, it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed for a period of three months. By a subsequent order, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, he was given appointment again for a fixed term of three months. It appears, that petitioners have not been permitted to work thereafter. They claim to have made a representation for their continuance in service and having received no response from the respondents, they have filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 17/18-6-1992 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) whereby directions have been issued by the Head Quarter against appointment of ad-hoc/daily wages employee.
(2.) PETITIONERS' appointment was for a fixed term. As held by Supreme Court in the case of Director Institute of Management Development, U. P. v. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070, a person appointed for a fixed term has no right to be regularised and has no right to continue after expiry of the term because the appointment was for fixed term which came to an end by efflux of time. In such case question of regularisation of an employee also does not arise. So far as the Government Order dated 18-6-1992 is concerned, it may be observed that by the above order, directions have been, issued against appointment on ad-hoc/daily wages basis. ' Question as to whether appointment should be made in government service depends on various factors such as availability of funds and posts as well as necessity according to the requirement of the work. Government is the best Judge to decide all these questions. As such Government is competent to issue direction for not making any appointment. It is for the Government to decide whether to appoint or not to appoint any employee. No exception can , be taken to such an order of the Government. Petitioner's appointment was for a fixed term and it came to end by efflux of time and not by Government Order referred to above; - For the reasons given above, this writ petition is dismissed. In case in future any appointment is to be made, it will be open to the petitioner to make an application for the same and if such an application is made, the same is liable to be considered on merit in accordance with law provided the petitioner is eligible. Petition dismissed.;