SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order of termination dated 5.9.2009 which has been passed in purported exercise of power under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as '1975 Rules') and have filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. It is submitted that though initially the petitioners were sought to be appointed temporarily but before issuance of the order of appointment, the posts became permanent, therefore, the appointment of the petitioners must be deemed to be 'substantive' and 'permanent' and 1975 Rules would not apply to their case and, hence, the impugned order is illegal.
(2.) I find no substance in the submission. So far as the appointment of the petitioners is concerned, the appointment letter dated 26.8.2008 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) shows that it was purely a temporary appointment liable to be terminated at any point of time. Whether the appointment is made on a permanent post or temporary post would not be relevant since the nature of appointment of the petitioners is purely 'temporary'. To attract provisions of 1975 Rules, it would be evident from Rule 1(3) that the same shall apply to all the persons holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh and who are under the rulemaking control of Governor, but who do not hold a lien on a permanent post under the Government of Uttar Pradesh. In Purshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, the Apex Court said that a person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier. It was also held that a Government Servant holding a post 'temporarily' has no right to hold the said post. The same thing was reiterated in Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1992 SC 496.
(3.) THE word "lien" has been defined by the Apex Court in Ram Lal Khurana Vs. State of Punjab & others JT 1989 (3) SC 430 as under: "Lien is not a word of art. It just connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed. Generally when a person with a lien against a post is appointed substantively to another post, he acquires a lien against the latter post. Then the lien against his previous post automatically disappears. It is a well accepted principle of service jurisprudence that no Government servant can have simultaneously two liens against two posts in two different cadres." ;