Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) -Heard Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he was untrained but engaged as Assistant Teacher in primary School managed by Zila Parishad, Mirzapur since 1963 and onwards but was not permitted to sign the attendance register from 1.7.1970 by the Head Master of Primary School, Dadhiram, District Mirzapur only on the ground that he is an untrained teacher. It is also submitted that though he has discharged his duties till 1974 but neither he was allowed to sign the attendance register nor his salary has been paid. Relying on the judgment dated 16.1.1988 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 31621 of 1980, Durga Prasad Chaturvedi v. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mirzapur, it is contended that the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit as allowed by this Court in the aforesaid case. Having heard Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I do not find any force in the aforesaid submissions. In support of the contention that the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher, he has filed a certificate issued by the Head Master of the Primary School, Dadhiram (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) which shows that the petitioner was never appointed on regular basis but he was engaged from time to time on temporary and tenure basis and the period of his appointment as mentioned in the certificate filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is as follows : First Appointment Letter 12.11.1953 to 30.5.1964 Second Appointment Letter 1.8.1964 to 1.5.1965 Third Appointment Letter 1.7.1965 to 31.5.1966 Fourth Appointment Letter 11.7.1966 to 31.5.1967 Fifth Appointment Letter 1.8.1967 to 31.5.1968 Sixth Appointment Letter 1.7.1968 to 31.5.1969 Seventh Appointment Letter July, 1969 to 30.5.1970 The aforesaid chart clearly shows that the petitioner's last appointment was made from July 1969 to 30.5.1970 and by efflux of time the aforesaid engagement came to an end. There is nothing on record to show that he was further appointed on and after 30.5.1970. That being so, there is no question of termination of service of the petitioner by the respondents in any manner and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was terminated wrongly cannot be accepted.
(3.) IN Director, INstitute of Management Development, U. P. v. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.), 1992 (4) SCC 33 : 1992 (3) AWC 1827 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the appointment made for a fixed tenure comes to an end on the expiry of the period of appointment provided in the letter of appointment and the incumbent need not be terminated as the termination of employment comes automatically by efflux of time. Taking a similar view a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, JT 2006 (4) SC 420 : 2006 (5) AWC 5325 (SC), in para 34 of the judgment observed as under : "If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued.";