State of Punjab and Another vs Vinod Kumar and Another

G.R. Majithia, J.—This Judgment disposes of Letters of Patent Appeal Nos.66 of 1987, 67 of 1987, 159 of 1987, Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3952 of 1986, 4321 of 1986, 4333 of 1987 4483 of 1986, 5135 of 1986. 5322 of 1986, 988 of 1987, 2801 of 1987 and 7782 of 1987 as common question of law arises for adjudication therein.

A reference to the relevant facts has been made from the pleadings in L.P.A No. 66 of 1987. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a clerk purely on temporary basis for 89 days from the date of appointment or till the regular candidates are provided by the subordinate Service Selection Board/Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, by the Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle No. VI, S.Y.L. Canal Project, Punjab Patiala, vide order dated May 17, 1982. Respondent No. 2 was likewise appointed vide order dated May 18, 1983. Their services were dispensed with effect from May 31, 1984 and April 30 1984 respectively. The orders dispensing with the services were challenged in this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 4053 of 1986. The learned single Judge quashed the orders dispensing with their services principally on the ground that the Clerks who were junior to the respondents had challenged their orders of termination from services in this Court and their termination was stayed. The learned Judge also observed that the persons junior to the respondents have been retained in service and he felt that the respondents should be given the same treatment as was given to the juniors.

The view taken by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. The orders of appointment and dispensing with the services of respondent No. 1 reads thus:

"Shri Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Som Nath is hereby appointed as a Clerk purely on temporary basis in the scale of Rs. 400-600 plus usual allowances as sanctioned by the Punjab Government for a period of 89 days from the date of entertainment or till the regular candidates are provided by the S.S. Board/Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab Chandigarh which is earlier. His services are liable to be terminated time without notice/assigning any reasons whatsoever also.

He is posted in Patiala Div. S.Y.L. Canal Project, Patiala, against the vacancy."

"In continuation of this office order No. 6204/3- Admn SYL/84, dated 27-4-1984 and as per decision taken by the Government in the meeting held on 4-4-1984 and conveyed to this office vide memo. No.l5/53/84-41PP-II/6367 dt 16.4.1984 the services of the following temporary clerks are hereby dispensed w.e.f. 31.5.1984 due to running of staff on account of reduction of posts on S.Y.L. Canal Project Organisation.

------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Name Father''s Dt. of Existing place No. name joining of Posting ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 to 9 xx xx xx xx 10. Sukhminder Harbhajan 23-7-1982 Circle No.VI Kaur Singh Old. 11 xx xx xx xx 12 Vinod Som Nath 17-9-1982 -do- Kumar xx xx xx xx" -------------------------------------------------------------------

The appointments of the respondents were only on adhoc basis and for a period of 89 days or until such time as the recommendees of the Subordinate Services Selection Board join, whichever is earlier. The services of the respondents in term of the appointment orders could be terminated without assigning any reason or without any notice. The appointments on adhoc basis do not confer any right on the appointees for regular appointment to such posts. In Sant Ram Bhal v. The State of Haryana ILR (1992) 1 P&H 546 Hon''ble the Chief Justice B.C. Verma as he then was speaking for the Full Bench observed thus:-

"As we have seen above, the petitioner''s appointment on promotion as Veterinary and Livestock Development Assistant, - vide Annexure P.2, was only on ad hoc basis and for a period of nine months or until such time as the recommendee of the S.S.S. Board joins, whichever is earlier. The petitioner''s services in terms of the appointment order could be terminated without assigning any reason or without any notice. Apparently, therefore, in terms of the order the petitioner had no right to the post of the Veterinary and Livestock Development Assistant and that appointment could be terminated on the expiry of nine months or on the joining of the recommendee of the S.S.S. Board and without assigning any reason. This is what exactly has been done, - vide Annexure P.3. The petitioner in our opinion, had acquired no right to hold that post."

The ratio of the judgment is fully attracted to the facts of the instant case and the respondents'' services have rightly been terminated.

For the reasons stated above, Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 66 of 1987, 67 of 1987 and 159 of 1987 are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is quashed. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3952 of 1986, 4231 of 1986, 4233 of 1986, 4483 of 1986, 5135 of 1986, 5322 of 1986, 988 of 1987, 2801 of 1987 and 7782 of 1987 are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.