- (1.) S. S. Sodhi, C. J. The termination of the services of a temporary employee, per the terms of his appointment, is sought to be challenged on the ground that as the post against which he had been appointed still exists and no regular selection to it has been made, he has a right to continue on the post till it is filled after such selection. The passing of the impugned order of termination without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is the other ground on which legal infirmity was sought to be attributed to it.
(2.) TO give the relevant factual background, the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar Jain, was appointed as a peon on ad hoc basis for a specified period of three months, by an order passed by the appointing authority on January, 4, 1991. This appointment was later extended by the order of March 26, 1991. The services of the petitioner were later terminated by the order of the District Registrar on May 6, 1991. On the representation of the petitioner, however, the Inspector General of Registration stayed this order but the appointment of the petitioner was eventually cancelled on June 10, 1991. There is no legal principle to support the point canvassed that if the post against which an employee is appointed, exists and no regular selection has been made for it, such employee is, as of right, entitled to continue on the post until such regular selection. As is well known, every appointment is governed by the terms thereof. If in terms of his appointment the services of an employee are terminated, no exception can be taken to it. For the same reason, no question of grant of hearing to an employee arises, where the termination of the services of an employee, as in the present case, is in terms of his appointment. There can thus be no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner has no legally enforceable right and the writ petition filed by him is wholly devoid of merit. He has rather been the beneficiary of, a, bounty as it were, by the interim order granted to him by this Court whereby his appointment for a few months only, was, by virtue of it, continued for over four years. This is indeed the most unfortunate aspect of this case.
(3.) THERE are thus no grounds for granting any relief to the petitioner. Dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;