R.A.Sharma - (1.) PETITIONER claims to have been appointed on 29-4-1992 as peon on temporary basis, against leave vacancy. Thereafter vide order dated 20-5-1992 he was appointed on temporary basis. Vide order dated 26-12-1992 his services have been terminated. It is against this order that this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on two grounds viz. (1) that there is permanent vacancy and till vacancy is not filed by respondents he has right to continue on the post and it is not open to the respondents to terminate his services, and (if) the order has been passed on malafide grounds. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. A person appointed on temporary basis has no right to the post and his services can be terminated at any time. No person can force the State to appoint him on particular post merely on the ground that he is eligible and the post is lying vacant. It is for the State to decide to make or not to make appointment to a post, or to keep the post in abeyance. Supreme Court, in the case of State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and others has, in this connection laid down as follows : "One fails to see how the existence of vacancies gives a legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment. The examination is for the purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection for appointment comas later. It is open then to the Government to decide how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed." Same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Jatinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, by holding that; "But it is open to the Government to decide how many appointments will be made. The process for selection and selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post which could be enforced by a mandamus." XXX XXX XXX XXX "The notice fication made by the Board in this ease was only an invitation to candidates possessing specified qualifications to apply for selection, for recruitment for certain posts, It did not hold out any promise that the selection would be made or if It was made the s?l?cted candidates would be appointed. The candidates did not acquire any right merely by applying for selection or for appointment after selection " A Division Bench of this Court in R. K. Sharma v. State of U. P.. 1990 (61) FLR 168 has also, after referring the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, laid down the same principle by holding as follows :- "Government has the power to determine how many appointments are to be made and it is open to the Government not to fill up a vacancy even after advertisement. A person, who has applied in pursuance of the advertisement cannot claim to be appointed to the post applied for and principle of promissory estoppel will not apply." xxx xxx xxx xxx "Government has the power to fill up or not to fill up any vacancy even after the advertisement unless there is soma express of implied prohibition by law." As regards the second submission the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to paragraphs 1, 8. and 9 of the writ petition, wherein allegations of alleged malafide have been made. From perusal of these paragraphs it is apparent that the only thing stated therein is that after Sri Ranbeer Singh has taken over charge as Regional Officer, the petitioner learnt that he will terminate his services in order to accommodate some one else. The allegations are vague and without any material in support thereof and are not worth reliance.
(3.) THE three decisions viz, THE Manager Govt. Branch Press v. D. B. Balliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429, Frank Anthony PSE Association v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 313, and Belal Ibne Mohd. Siddiqui v. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, 1991 (2) UP LB EC 1326, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner do not lend any support to the petitioners case. In the case of D. B. Balliappa (supra) what was argued and decided was about arbitrary discrimination by the concerned authorities by picking out the respondent therein for termination of service, while retaining the services of this juniors. This is not the controversy raised in the instant case. In Frank Anthony PSE Association (Supra) the question relating to the rights of the minority institutions and their contents of dimensions were raised and decided. It dealt with different controversy with which the petitioner is not at all concerned. In Belal Ibne Mohd. Siddiqui (supra) the services of Junior Engineers were terminated on the ground that there is no vacancy. This court, on perusal of affidavits, came to the conclusion that there are vacancies and basis on which the services of petitioners therein were terminated, was un-sustainable and the writ petition was accordingly allowed. That is not the controversy in the Instant case, as the service of the petitioner has not been terminated on the ground of want of vacancy. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;