Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) -The grievance of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Lecturer vide appointment letter dated 11.10.2007 in Dayalbagh Educational Institute (Deemed University) at Agra. Though the said appointment was for a period of one year being a fixed term temporary appointment but the petitioner is entitled to continue even thereafter since no person on the regular basis has been appointed on the said post.
(2.) HOWEVER, I do not find any substance in the submission for the reason that the petitioner has no legal right to continue beyond the term of his appointment letter. The appointment letter clearly provides as under : "I am directed to inform you that the Managing Council for the Non-University General Educational Institute has appointed you as Lecturer in Home Science in the D.E.I. Prem Vidyalaya Girls Intermediate College on temporary (fixed-term) basis for a period of one year only from the date you assume charge of the post, on a starting basic pay of Rs. 5,500 per month in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-175-8,650 plus admissible allowances under the rules of the Institute on the following terms and conditions : 1. You are appointed on temporary (fixed-term) basis against an existing vacancy which is likely to be filled up on regular basis and action for filling it up on regular basis is under process, therefore, your said service shall stand automatically terminated on expiry of your temporary (fixed-term) appointment or on resumption of duty by a regular incumbent on the post, whichever is earlier. 2. This temporary (fixed-term) appointment can also be terminated by either of the parties by giving one month's notice or by paying one month's salary in lieu thereof." Clause 5 thereof further reads as under : "5. This temporary (fixed-term) appointment of yours will not confer any prescriptive right for your future absorption in any service of the Institute." In view of the aforesaid terms and conditions of appointment letter it is evident that she was a tenure appointee for one year without any claim for renewal after the tenure is over.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that as per the terms of appointment, engagement of the petitioner was only for a particular session and by efflux of time the same would come to an end. The question is whether the petitioner can claim a right to continue in institution despite the aforesaid condition of appointment. The letter of appointment in effect would already lose its efficacy by efflux of time that it would suo motu lapse on expiry of tenure. Whether the petitioner in such circumstance can be directed to continue even beyond that is the moot question to be considered and answered here. In my view reply would be in negative. The appointment of the petitioner being for a fixed tenure, she has no right to continue beyond the period indicated in the letter of appointment. IT is evident that the appointment made is time bound. Extension of appointment by judicial order therefore is not permissible. A similar controversy came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Alok Kumar Singh (Dr.) and 15 others v. State of U. P. and others, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1373 : 2002 (3) AWC 1859, wherein it has been held that the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue in service beyond the period of appointment provided in the letter of appointment. Besides, the appointment of the petitioner, a fixed term, would come to an end automatically by efflux of time. In case the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it would amount to re-writing the appointment letter allowing the petitioner to continue without there being any letter of appointment issued by the competent authority for a period after the tenure is over. 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, which is 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. In this case also, admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner is for fixed tenure and in case the contention of the petitioner is accepted it will amount to giving an appointment by this Court for the period subsequent there to substituting itself to the position of appointing authority. This is neither permissible in law nor should be done. When a procedure is prescribed to do a thing in a particular manner, it should not be done otherwise. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Writ Petition No. 20871 of 2006, Dr Vijay Kumar Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 25.4.2006. Further 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 has 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." ;