CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to treat petitioner as having been appointed in substantive capacity with effect from 16.5.83 or in the alternative to consider him for regularisation w.e.f. 16.5.83 and give him seniority and other consequential benefits accordingly.
(2.) THE factual gamut reveals that petitioner started working with the respondent Corporation as a Typist on daily wages from 1980. On 14.5.83, a test of Typists was held and his name appeared in the Select List and in pursuance of that he was issued appointment letter 16.5.83 (Annexure 4) which reads as under :- "THE following persons working on stipendary basis in the Corpora- tion are hereby appointed on the post of Typist in the pay scale.......with usual allowances on temporary basis till further orders. THE services of these persons will be governed by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1958 and annual grade increments to these persons would be available only after qualifying in Stenography or passing a Graduate Examination....... (1) Shri Thomas Chandy, (2) Shri Sant Kumar Sharma, (3) Shri Rakesh Kumar." Petitioner urged that he was given a notice of termination on 16.2.85 which was challenged by him before this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 473/1985 and subsequently, the notice dated 16.2.85 was withdrawn and as a consequence the said writ petition was, also, dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner acquired the qualification of Madhyama Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag in December, 1985. The said qualification had been recognised as equiva- lent to Graduation and it was derecognised with effect from 21.4.86. The derecognition cannot be given effect with retrospective date. So he has acquired the qualification of Graduation. As the petitioner had been appointed after following the selection process, he should be declared, firstly to having been appointed in substantive capacity, or in the alternative, after possessing the qualification he would be deemed to have been regularised with effect from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. 16.5.83. Heard Mr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Dave, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. Singhvi has submitted that as petitioner had been appointed after hol- ding a full-fledged selection, his appointment cannot be termed as temporary and he cannot be deprived of the benefit of annual grade increments and he is entitled to be considered to have been appointed in substantive capacity. The petitioner was appointed on the post on temporary basis, thus, he cannot claim that he was having any right to the post, and he is to be treated as having been appointed in substantive capacity in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1), the Apex Court has categorically held as under :- "Under the service jurisprudence a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated in accordance with the relevant service rules and the terms of contract of service."
(3.) IN a case like the instant the Court has to be satisfied as what is the legally justiciable right of the petitioner which has been infringed and for which the petitioner can resort to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia. The Supreme Court in Purshotam Lal Dingra vs. Union of INdia (2), has held 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" and further held that "a Government servant holding a post temporarily does not have any right to hold the said post." IN R.K. Mishra vs. U.P. State Handloom Corporation (3), the Apex Court has taken the same view. A temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. Similarly, in Triveni Shanker Saxena vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (4); Commissioner of Food and Supply vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (5); Ram Chandra Tripathi vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal & Ors. (6); Madhya Pradesh Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Devendra Kumar Jain & Anr. (7); Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice, has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right. In Ravi S. Naik vs. Union of India (8), the Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on the observations made in Malloch vs. Aberdden Corporation (9), wherein it has been observed as under:- "A breach of procedure, whether called a failure of natural justice or an essential administrative fault cannot give him a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The Court does not act in vain." ;