- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 1/2-2-1990 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) by which his services have been terminated w. e. f. 28-2-1990.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Industrial Training Institute, Bulandshahar vide appointment letter dated 24-4-1989 issued by the Principal. THE petitioner joined duties in pursuance of the above letter of appointment and worked continuously till the passing of the impugned order. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis and as such his services were governed by the U. P. Temporary Government Servant (termination of Service) Rules, 1975. Therefore, no illegality has been committed in terminating his services by giving one month's notice. In the supplementary counter-affidavit the respondent No. 1 has stated that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary in nature and the said appointment was not even approved by the Director, Training and Employment, U. P. , Lucknow and in fact had been disapproved vide letter dated 20/22-1-1990 on the ground that his appointment was unlawful as it was not made through the Regional Selection Committee and was without the prior approval of the Director as envisaged by the office order of the Director dated 16-6-1983. Therefore, the Director issued directions to the respondent No. 1 (Principal) to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. However, instead of cancelling the petitioner's appointment as directed it was considered proper to terminate his services simplicitor as he had not been confirmed. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the impugned order. Sri H. R. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned termination order is unsustainable under law as the principles of natural justice have not been followed before passing the same. The petitioner was not given any show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing before terminating his service. The impugned order casts a stigma as per the allegations made in the supplementary counter-affidavit.
(3.) I have examined the records of the writ petition and the impugned order of termination as well as the letter of appointment. Undisputedly the petitioner was appointment temporarily and was not confirmed on the post of the Lower Division Clerk. Therefore, he was purely a temporary employee whose services were covered by the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1973. Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules provide that the services of temporary employee shall be terminable at any time by a month's notice in writing. The said Rule 3 is quoted below: "3. Termination of service.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any existing rules or orders on the subject, the services of a Government servant in temporary service shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government servant; (2) The period of notice shall be one month: Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Apex Court while considering the termination of a temporary Government employee under he aforesaid Rules in the case of State of U. P. & Anr. v. Kamal Kishor Shukla, JT 1991 (1) SC 108, has held that a temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated by giving him one month's notice without assigning any reason. Whenever the appointing authority is satisfied that the work and conduct of a servant is not satisfactory or that his continuance in service is not in public interest on account of his unsuitability, misconduct or inefficiency, it may either terminate his services in accordance with he terms and conditions of the services or the relevant rules or it may decide to take the punitive action against the said temporary Government servant. If the authority decides to take he punitive action it may hold a formal inquiry by framing charges and giving opportunity of tearing. The Court further held that in determining the nature of the order i. e. whether the termination is simplicitor or is punitive in nature the Court has to apply two tests namely (1) whether a temporary Government servant had a right to the post and (2) whether he has been visited with evil consequences and if either of the above two tests is satisfied, it must be held that the order of termination of a temporary employee is by way of punishment. In the present case there is no dispute that the petitioner was a temporary employee and as such he had no right or lien on any post. In Trivedi Shankar v. State of U. P. , AIR 1992 SC 496, the Supreme Court has observed that an employee acquires lien on the post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on the post and not earlier. The petitioner has not been confirmed on the post of Lower Division Clerk and has not been made permanent on the said post and, therefore, he had acquired no lien over the same. The termination of his service also does not visit him with evil consequences in as much as "evil consequences" do not include the termination of services of a temporary Government employee, if it is done in accordance with Rules or terms and conditions of service vide Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1958 SLR 828 Para 7. Undisputedly the services of the petitioner have been terminated in accordance with Rule 3 of the above Rules. Therefore, the impugned order of termination passed against the petitioner is no way punitive in nature nor does it indict the petitioner for any misconduct.;