Girish Kumar Mishra vs D.I.O.S.Shahjahanpur

K.D. Shahi, J.—Petitioner Girish Kumar Misra, who was appointed on 1481996 as IVth class employee by the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur on ad hoc basis, has filed the present writ petition for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 881997 (Annexure9 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1.

The petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on 148 1996 in Government Higher Secondary School, Kant district Shahjahanpur. The appointment letter (Annexure to the writ petition) specifically mentioned that he was appointed on 1481996 on ad hoc basis for a period of two and half months only with a clear understanding that his services were purely temporary and can be terminated at any time without any notice.

On 28101996 his period of appointment was extended till 1411997. His services were extended from 1511997 to 2821997 and again from 131997 to 1451997. Thereafter the period of his services was not extended.

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 21871 of 1997 which was decided by this Court on 1071997. In the judgment itself it has been specifically stated that the appointment of the petitioner was for a short period and his services were extended from time to time and he could not have claimed as his right to continue on the post. However, this Court ordered that in case the work and conduct of the petitioner were found satisfactory, till any regular selection was made, it was open for the District Inspector of Schools to consider regarding the appointment of the petitioner on a representation being rate by him. The writ petition was dismissed. No order was passed by this Court necessarily to appoint the petitioner. On a representation having been made the petitioner was again appointed on 23797, vide Annexure ''8'' to the writ petition, on ad hoc basis. Then again by the impugned order dated 881997 the District Inspector of Schools passed an order that by notification dated 19th August, 1992 it was informed that the appointment on ad hoc basis is banned from 2911991. Therefore, the appointment of Girish Kumar Misra was an illegal and as such it was cancelled.

The petitioner has alleged that he has neither been afforded any opportunity to show cause nor he has been given any right of hearing. Para 4 of the banorder also exempted short term appointment and appointment on leave vacancy.

It was contended in the counteraffidavit as also in the argument advanced by the learned State Counsel, that as the order of appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and only for a limited period the petitioner has got no right to continue in service.

It is an admitted fact that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on ad hoc basis. The extension granted to the petitioner was up to 1451997. The order of appointment given to the petitioner in pursuance of the order of this Court was also purely on ad hoc basis.

It is settled principles of law that an ad hoc appointee has got no right to continue in service and his services can be dispensed with at any time. The only bar is that an ad hoc cannot be substituted by another ad hoc. Since no lien was created to the petitioner there is no question of affording any opportunity of hearing. There is no infringement of any right and if there is no infringement of any right there is no question of affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited a case reported in 1985 UPLBEC 22, Girish Chandra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., where the petitioner was temporarily appointed and his services were terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing. It was held that the order of termination is against the principles of natural justice. In this ruling the appointment of the petitioner was not made on ad hoc basis. Another case referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is AIR 1991 SC 309 Shrawan Kumar Jha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., In this ruling 175 candidates were appointed whose appointments were cancelled. There is nothing to say that they were appointed on ad hoc basis. In another ruling reported in 1992 UPLBEC 1276, Pratap Singh Rawat v. State of U.P. & Ors., the petitioner was appointed before 1981 and was promoted in 1981 and then his services were terminated in 1989. His appointment was approved and he was confirmed. It was held that an opportunity of hearing should have been given to him. Without affording opportunity of hearing it could not have been held that his appointment was irregular. All these rulings do not apply to the facts of the present case. The appointment of the present petitioner may or may not have been made against the Government order. He was only an ad hoc appointee without having any lien or right to the post. It was not necessary to have provided him an opportunity of hearing. The question of opportunity arises only when a person has right to continue in service.

This writ petition has got no merits and is accordingly dismissed.