Sapna Agarwal and Others vs State of U.P.and Others

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the petitioners'' appointment letters, copies of which have been annexed as Annexures 4 to 8 of the writ petition, show that the petitioners were appointed on Mandeya (Honorarium) post. Such an appointee has no right as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 2002(2) LBESR 234 (All) : 2002(2) ESC 427.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have a right to continue till a regularly selected candidate selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission comes to join the post. We do not agree with the submission. A temporary appointee has no right to the post and there is no legal principle that he has a right to continue till a regularly selected candidate comes to join.

If it is held that a temporary appointee has a right to continue till a regularly selected candidate comes and joins the post, then a person appointed on a temporary, ad hoc or casual basis for only one month can claim that if a regularly selected candidate is not available for 25 years then he has a right to continue till 25 years. No such legal proposition exist in law. In fact, the correct legal proposition is just the reverse, namely, that a temporary appointee has no right to the post and hence has no right to continue even for a day, what to say of the right to continue till a regularly selected candidate comes and joins the post.

Petition is dismissed.