J.M.TANDON,J. - (1.) On the recommendation of the Employment Exchange, Om Parkash Sharma Petitioner was offered a temporary appointment as a Clerk in the Haryana Civil Secretariat on ad hoc basis vide letter dated October 6, 1978, which contains the terms of appointment, some of which read:- "(1) ... (2) Please note that your appointment in this Secretariat is for the present for a maximum period of six months from the date you report for duty in this secretariat as clerk. (3) It should be clearly understood that this offer of appointment is purely temporary on ad hoc basis and carries no promise of subsequent permanent appointment. Your services would be liable to be terminated at any time without any prior notice. (4) ..... (5) ... ... ... ... (6) ... (7) ... ... ... ... (8) If you are willing to accept this offer on the conditions mentioned above, you should report yourself for duty to the Superintendent, Establishment-II Branch (Room No. 38) 5th Floor, Haryana Civil Secretariat at Chandigarh immediately but in no case later than October 20, 1978. If you fail to join by that date, your name will be removed from the list of approved candidates unless you are able to furnish satisfactory explanation for not having joined in time."
(2.) The petitioner accepted the offer and joined as a Clerk in the Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, on October 13, 1978 in September, 1980, the Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter the Board) recommended the names of candidates for appointment as Clerks in the various departments of the Government on regular basis. The appointments on regular basis are likely to disturb the ad hoc appointees who are otherwise not eligible to be regularised in terms of the policy decision taken by the Government. The petitioner being admittedly ineligible for such regularisation rightly apprehends to loss the job consequent upon the appointment on regular basis being made against the post held by him. He has filed the present writ petition alleging that the constitution of the Board is unconstitutional and illegal and further the recommendations made by it apart from being irregular also suffer from the same infirmity. He has prayed that the constitution of the Board he quashed and the Government be directed not to appoint its recommendee against the post held by him resulting in his replacement.
(3.) The learned counsel for the State has argued that the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be given to him for the reasons that he holds an ad hoc appointment and his services can be terminated with maximum of case and without assigning any reason. Reliance has been placed on Gian Chand and anthers v Director, Hydel Designs, Punjab, Chandigarh and another (Division Bench), 1976 Lab. I.C. 1177,- S K. Verma and others v. State of Punjab and others (Full Bench), A.I.R. 1979 Punjab and Haryana 149- and Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and others, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1044.-;