K. C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed by Dr. (Smt.) Rashmi Kumar and seven others seeks quashing of the advertisement made by the U. P. Public Service Commission for recruitment of lecturers in various specialities enumerated in the advertisement issued by it in K. G. Medical College, Lucknow.
(2.) THE petitioners alleged that in pursuance of the advertisement made on 25th February, 1984 by the Director of Medical Education and Training, Lucknow, respondent no. 2, the relevant portion of which was as follows : "for making ad hoc appointment on the post of lecturers in the under noted specialities in the State Medical Colleges and K. G. Medical College, Lucknow." the petitioners 1 to 6 and 8 had applied as against the said advertisement of the year 1984 whereas petitioner no. 7 applied against the advertisement issued in 1985 by the Director of Medical Education and Training, Lucknow. THE Selection Committee, the petitioners have alleged, interviewed them, recommended their names for appointment as lecturers and doctors in their respective posts in K. G. Medical College, Lucknow. After being selected, the petitioners were issued appointment letters. THE relevant portion of the appointment letter of petitioner no. 1, Dr. (Smt.) Rashmi Kumar, is extracted below : "Adhohastakshar ko yeh kahne ka nirdesh hua hai ki Rajyapal Mahodaya Dr. (Smt.) Rashmi Kumar ki K. G. Medical College, Lucknow me Lecturer in Paediatrics ke pad par tadarth niyukti unke dwara sambandhit pad ka karya bhar grahan karne ki tithi se ek varsh ya ukt pad par Ayog dwara bidhivat chunao ke adhar par uplabdh abhyarthi ki niyukti hone ya unke us pad par sewaon ko avashyakta na rahne, unme se jo bhi pahle ghatit ho, tak ke liya niche para 2 me ullikhit sharton avam paratibandhon par anumadit karte hain." Similar appointment letters were issued to other petitioners. On 23rd April, 1985, Sri S. S. Misra, who was the Director wrote a letter to the Principal, K. G. Medical College, Lucknow intimating that the services of the petitioners and others would not be terminated in May 1985 although there terms of appointment made for one year would be over by that time. The letter said : "Shashan ke agrim adeshon tak uprokta kathit adhyapakon/adhikariyon ki sewa samapt na ki jaye." The petitioners were continued on the posts appointed on ad hoc basis in 1984 although they were liable to be terminated. The State Government has been issuing letters or instructions depricating the tendency of making ad hoc appointments in its various departments as it was thought that the State Government should not encourage a tendency which passes over the requirement of the consultation of the Public Servic5 Commission. These Government Orders were (i) no. 19/5/81-Karmik-1; dated 28th August, 1981 : (ii) no. 6631-Se. 14/-99/83 dated 1st October, 1985 and (iii) no. 15/18/86- Karmik-1-1986 dated 18th March, 1986. In paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which are a virtual repetition of paragraphs of other G. Os. mentioned above, the State Government issued strict instructions to the authorities for not making ad hoc appointments.
(3.) AN ad hoc employee, who has been appointed for a particular period or purpose or to meet an exigency, has no right to continue on the post by claiming himself to be permanent. Such an appointment terminates with the happening of the contingency or the expiration of the period or purpose. He has no right to hold it. Such an employee or a government servant is not entitled to a Writ of Mandamus restraining the employer from making a regular appointment or for a Mandamus to the employer to regularise his service. Power to regularise a post held by an ad hoc employee flows from the power of appointment. In Vasudeva v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 2292, the Supreme Court held that an ad hoc or temporary employee has no right to the post. In a Full Bench judgment, in S. K. Verma v. State, AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 149, Sandhawalia, J., who spoke for the bench, discussed the problem. The relevant extract from the Full Bench are quoted below : "The term 'ad hoc employee' is conveniently used for a wholly temporary employee, engaged either for a particular period or for a particular purpose and one whose services can be terminated with the maximum of ease. As against the permanent, quasi-permanent, and temporary employee, the ad hoc one appears at the lowest level implying that he had been engaged casually, or for a stop-gap arrangement for a short duration or fleeting purposes." ;