M. Katju, A.C.J. - (1.) -Thus bunch of special appeals has been filed against the impugned judgment of a learned single Judge dated 10.7.2003. We have perused the impugned judgment and heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE writ petitioners filed writ petitions for regularisation on the post of junior clerk in the office of the Chief Electoral Office, Lucknow. THEy have also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the District Chief Electoral Officer by which petitioner's representation regarding their claim for regularisation has been rejected. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioners were appointed initially against temporary posts of junior clerk in the office of the District Election Officer temporarily for certain periods according to the exigency and the work load in connection with the election of Lok Sabha for short spells. The details are given below : Sl No. Special Appeal No. Petitioner's Names Total period of service in different short term spells Years Month Days (1) 703 of 2003 Sanjay Kumar Pandey 1.9.16 between 9.5.1988 to 31.3.1994 (2) 704 of 2003 Dinesh Yadav 2.5.14 between 12.4.1991 to 30.6.1998 (3) 22 of 2004 Salah Uddin Siddiqui 3.1.18 between 6.3.1982 to 30.6.1998 (4) 23 of 2004 Ram Briksha 2.7.23 between 3.9.1983 to 30.6.1998 (5) 24 of 2004 Heera Lal 2.3.18 between 27.5.1988 to 30.6.1998 (6) 88 of 2004 Km. Srimati Devi 00.11.7 between 25.1.1998 to 31.12.1999 (7) 99 of 2004 Kamla Prasad Yadav 00.11.7 between 25.1.1998 to 31.12.1999 (8) 100 of 2004 Vinod Kumar 2.9.20 between 25.4.1988 to 30.6.1998 (9) 102 of 2004 Dinesh Kumar Shukla 4.1.25 between 16.5.1988 to 30.6.1998 (10) 104 of 2004 Ravindra Kumar 2.6.25 between 25.5.1988 to 30.6.1998 (11) 336 of 2003 Hansraj 5.4.23 between 9.3.1980 to 31.3.1997 (12) 337 of 2003 Rakesh 4.2.1 between 9.3.1980 to 31.3.1997 They were not appointed against substantive vacancies on permanent posts but they were given short term appointments during the time of the election due to the increase of work load for short duration. For regularisation and substantive appointment a procedure has been prescribed under the U. P. Election Department District Level Ministerial Service Rules, 1992, as amended in 1995. Under the rules there are only two modes by which regularisation can be granted. The first mode is that those who were appointed on ad hoc basis and had worked continuously for more than 3 years and their cases are governed by the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, can be considered for regularisation on the basis of the past performance, character roll etc. The writ petitioners were not eligible for regularisation under the Regularisation Rules as they did not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Rules. The writ petitioners had not worked continuously for more than 3 years on the relevant dates. The second mode of regularisation could have been under the 1992 Rules as amended in 1995. In the present case regular selection was notified by the appellant and was finalised in the year 1997-98. The writ petitioners either did not appear in the aforesaid selection or could not be selected. Hence the writ petitioners could not be regularised by this mode also. Most of the petitioners are over age and hence are ineligible for regular appointment. Considering this aspect the Chief Election Officer by order dated 30.7.1999 rejected the claim of the writ petitioners for regularisation. In fact the services of the writ petitioners had already come to an end on the expiry of the period for which they were appointed. They were not in service on the date when the writ petitioners filed the writ petition and hence we cannot see how the learned single Judge could have directed their regularisation. Hence in our opinion these appeals deserve to be allowed.
(3.) IT is well-settled that regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right contrary to the statutory rules vide Division Bench of this Court in State of U. P. v. Irshad Ahmad, 2004 (2) AWC 1242 : 2004 ALJ 1100. This was also a case relating to an ad hoc employee appointed during election time temporarily, and hence this decision squarely applies to the present appeals also. It is well-settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of U. P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 (1) AWC 651 (SC) : 1991 (1) SCC 691 and Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U. P., AIR 1992 SC 496. In Secretary, Ministry of Works and Housing v. Mohinder Singh Jagdev, JT 1996 (8) SC 46, the Supreme Court observed that until the temporary service matures into a permanent one the employee has no right to the post. This view has been followed in M. P. Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. D. K. Jain, 1995 (1) SCC 638.;