R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioner claims to have been appointed, on 26-6-1991, as Collection Amin for the period from 27-12-1991 to 2-2-1992. A copy of this appointment letter has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, in which it has been mentioned that services of the petitioner are purely temporary and will come to an end automatically on 2-2-1992. It was further mentioned that his services can be terminated at any time without any prior notice. By letter dated February 2, 1992 the petitioner was appointed for further period from 3-2-1992 to 3-3-1992 on the same terms and conditions. He continued to be appointed for fixed terms on the same terms and conditions by appointment letters issued on 5-3-1992, April 6, 1992, June 1, 1992, July 5, 1992 and October 3, 1992. By the last letter of appointment the petitioner was appointed for the period ending on 31-10-1992. No further appointments having been made the petitioner has ceased to work after 31-10.1992 and has accordingly filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat him in service and not to interfere with his working as Collection Amin.
(2.) Petitioner was appointed on contract basis for fixed terms on 26-12-1991 with the conditions that the appointment shall come to an end on last date of the stipulated period and his service can be terminated even before that date without any prior notice. Although his appointment was extended from time to time upto 31-10-1992, but all those appointments were for fixed terms on the same terms and conditions. Petitioner's appointment being purely temporary he has no right to the post and his appointment, being for fixed term, came to an end automatically by efflux of time. Whenever an appointment is made for a fixed term it comes to an end on the expiry of the period automatically and the employee, thereafter, has no right to continue in the service, even if the post remains vacant. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U. P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, Judgment Today 1992 (4) 489, wherein the Supreme Court has laid down as follows : "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 conies to an end, the respondent could have no right to continue in the post once this conclusion is arrived at, what requires 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 regularisation. The answer should be in the negative.''
(3.) In the case of Smt. Pushpa Srivastava (supra), she was appointed for a period of three months on a fixed salary, Her appointment was continued subsequently for further periods from time to time, but always for fixed terms and on the same terms and conditions. Although she continued to work in this manner for about two years, but as she was appointed for fixed terms on temporary basis the Supreme Court negatived her claim to continue on the post.;