- (1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an adhoc em ployee, terminated from service, has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31-01-1984 (Annexure -2), order dated 23-01-1984 (Annexure -6) and order dated 11-01-1984 (Annexure-5), passed by the re spondents.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Brief facts of the case, as nar rated in the-writ petition are that the pe titioner Lila Pat Singh was initially ap pointed on 01-03-1973, as a Senior Ac counts Clerk in Meerut region in the De partment of Food and Civil Supplies of the State of U. P. His appointment ap pears to be a seasonal one. From time to time, he was discharged from service and reappointed every year as is clear from para-5 of the writ petition. At times, he was appointed to the post of Senior Accounts Clerk, at times he al leges that he was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk. Finally vide order dated 31-01-1984 (Annexure-2) his services were terminated by the Food Controller, Dehradun. The petitioner has challenged said order on the ground that he was an experienced person and his services were terminated without keeping in mind that he was fully qualified when he initially entered in the service. According to the petitioner, vide Government Order dated 28-02-1980, he was not required to be intermediate with Commerce and his appointment was a valid appointment. It is further stated in the writ petition that the change in qualification made thereafter was not applicable to the petitioner. The respondents contested the petition and filed their counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner has no right to continue in service, as he was an adhoc employee. The relaxa tion in qualification was not admissible to him, as mentioned in the Govern ment Order dated 28-06-1982. The Government Order No. Ve. Aa. 1-1082/ Das-34 (M) 83 dated 11-08-1983, relied by the petitioner was ap plicable only to the regular employees and the petitioner did not fall in that cat egory. The Government Order No. 326/ 121/83 Adhi dated 23-01-1984, clearly provided that ho relaxation would be provided in the qualification, required for the post held by the petitioner.
(3.) IT is pertinent to mention here that Annexure-1. is the letter of appoint ment under which the petitioner was working on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk, whereafter his services were ter minated. Annexure-1 to the writ petition itself shows that the appointment of the petitioner was of adhoc nature on a tem porary post and his services can be dis pensed with at any time. The appoint ment letter dated 01-12-1983 also shows that the petitioner was reappointed be ing a retrenched employee. IT further pro vided that if the petitioner is not quali fied for the post, his services can be ter minated at any time. Annexure - 2 to the writ petition, which is the order of termination, indi cates it is a simplicitor termination or der of adhoc employee. It does not in dicate any stigma of the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that adhoc em ployee has no right to continue over a post for an indefinite period. As such, no right can be said to have been vio lated by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 31-01 - 1984, whereby his services were terminated.;