- (1.) S. S. Sodhi, C. J. No occasion arises for the petitioner to be granted any relief in this writ petition.
(2.) A reference to the record shows that the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment on March 15, 1991 and his services as such, were terminated on June 19, 1991. It was the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that as the appointment letter said that his appointment was to continue until regular appointments are made, his services could not have been terminated until such regular appointments. This contention cannot be sustained. It is well settled that where a temporary appointment is given and it is mentioned in the letter of appointment that his services shall continue till regular appointments are made, such an order merely fixes an outer limit for the period of appointment but it constitutes no bar to the service of such temporary employee being terminated earlier as the employer may deem appropriate. It appears that after the termination of services on June 19, 1991, the petitioner was employed again, but this time on daily wages. As a daily wager his status as an employee was even more vulnerable to termination. It certainly conferred upon him no right to continue in service, as he has been able to do, by virtue of the interim order granted to him by this Court. The extraordinary feature of this case here is that not only has the petitioner been able to continue in service, when he was not clearly entitled to, but what is more, unlike others appointed on daily wages, again by virtue of the interim order, he has been receiving the salary of a regular employee.
(3.) DISMISSAL of this writ petition cannot but be looked upon as undoing a grave wrong. The writ petition is consequently hereby dismissed with these observations. Petition dismissed. .;