M.Katju, Umeshwar Pandey - (1.) HEARD Sri Shashi Nandan and Smt. Suneeta Agarwal for the appellant and Sri Hemant Kumar for the respondent.
(2.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge, dated 13.5.2004. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and we are of the opinion that the same cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the respondent was purely a temporary appointee who was appointed temporarily as Security Assistant in the Proctor's Office for a period of six months or till some arrangement of regular appointment is made or until further orders whichever is earlier duties on 23.3.2001. His term was extended from 23.11.2001 for a period of one year and again he was allowed on 20.12.2001 to continue till further orders or till the regular selection is made whichever is earlier. It appears that a circular dated 20.5.2003 was issued by the competent authority of the Aligarh Muslim University (the Vice Chancellor) copy of which is Annexure-4 to the stay application filed with this appeal. By this order dated 20.5.2003 the competent authority directed that the appointments of temporary employees sanctioned on various non-teaching/ technical cadre posts and group D employees till further orders be now treated to have been made only upto 30.6.2003. By the same order it was also directed that the proposal for further sanction of temporary appointments beyond 30.6.2003 along with detailed notification may be sent to the Registrar on the prescribed authority.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY the respondent Ram Prakash Shukla was a purely temporary appointee and hence he had no right to the post. No proposal was sent for extension of his service and therefore his service came to an end on 30.6.2003, in view of the order of the competent authority dated 20.5.2003. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was discriminated against and the services of some other persons were extended. Regarding these persons Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that proposals were sent for extending their service as they were needed in the respective departments, whereas there was no proposal in respect of the writ petitioner as he was not needed. It is not for this Court to decide whether a person is needed or not needed. The Court must exercise judicial restraint in such matters and should not interfere in such matters which lie within the domain of the University or competent authority. Some latitude should be given to the executive and it is not proper for this Court to interfere on the lightest pretext.;