- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Appellant Atul Nautiyal has filed this Special Appeal against the im pugned judgment dated 21-08-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 932 of 2003 (S/s ).
(2.) APPELLANT Atul Nautiyal had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding the Respondents to forthwith pay the entire arrears of salary with effect from 1-3-2003 to the Petitioners and also to pay the due salary for the posts held by them regularly from month to month, as and when it falls due. B. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus re straining the Respondents from interfering in the functioning of the Petitioners in any manner whatsoever except in accord ance with law. C. To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. D. To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the Peti tioners. " The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator vide order of appointment dated 08- 11-2001 (Annexure No. 3) for the pe riod up to 31-12-2001. The term of his appointment was extended several times, the last being vide order dated 21-12-2002 (Annexure No. 13) up to 28-02-2003. The petitioner's entire claim for continuance on the said post was based on the stipulation in the order dated 21-12-2002, which was to the effect that as and when a regularly selected candidate for the said post becomes available, the petitioner's services will come to an end automati cally. The petitioner has pleaded that as no regularly selected candidate was available for the said post, the re spondents ought to have allowed the petitioner to continue on the said post. The respondents had filed their counter affidavit wherein the aver ments made by the petitioner in the writ petition were emphatically denied. In their counter affidavit, it was cat egorically pleaded that petitioner's appointment on the post of Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator was a pure and simple contractual appointment for a fixed term and mere extension of the term of the petitioner's appointment by the respondents several times will not create any right in favour of the petitioner to continue on the said post beyond the period of the contractual appointment.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge, on a thorough consideration of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and following the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case ,of Secretary, State of Karnatak and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others re ported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, held that the petitioner had no right to continue on the post of Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator after the expiry of the period of his contractual appointment. THE learned Single Judge, therefore, dis missed the petitioner's writ petition. Mr. Chetan Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in not accepting the petition er's contentions about his claim to continue o the said post. The learned counsel further contended that as no regularly selected candidate for the said post was available, the respondents ought to have permitted the pe titioner to continue on the said post.;