High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ved Krishna Khare v. Transport Commissioner Lucknow - WRIT - A No. 461 of 2001  RD-AH 856 (23 March 2005)
Court No. 3
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 461 of 2001
Sri Ved Krishna Khare
Transport commissioner and others
Heard Sri A.R.Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a class-IV employee on adhoc basis in the basic pay scale of Rs. 759-90 plus dearness allowances etc. by the appointment letter dated 30th August 1997. The appointment letter of the petitioner stipulated that his appointment will be till a regularly selected candidate joins and shall be subject to the conditions that the same shall be purely temporary and will be liable to be terminated without any notice.. The petitioner submits that he joined the post on 6th September 1997 in the Sub-region Sonebhadra and since then he was working under the A.R.T.O. Sonebhadra . It is further submitted that no selection has taken place even till the date and the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with by means of the order dated 27.3.1998. True copy has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is further stated by the petitioner that the order of termination is not an order simplicitor in as much as it has been passed for the purpose of accommodating the persons of choice of the said authority upon the post occupied by the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated that appointment made on purely temporary basis was in view of the requirement of such persons in the absence of a regular selection having taken place.
In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the terms and conditions of the appointment letter were very clear and services of the petitioner could be terminated without any notice. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that this writ petition has been filed after gap of three years without explaining the delay . The termination order was passed as back as on 27.5.1998 and this writ petition has been filed in the y ear 2001 .
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to para 34 of the writ petition where the petitioner has tried to explain the delay in filing the writ petition. The reason given is that the petitioner had no knowledge with respect to the proceedings which were going on in this Court with regard to other similarly terminated adhoc employees of the class IV working under the respondents and all of whom have been re-instated now . He also stated that he belongs to a poor and rustic family hence he could not approach this Court at the earliest. Consequently the delay may be condoned.
It has further been stated that by an order dated 15th July 1997, Regional Transport Officers were directed to complete selection for the post in all regions. This order was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25158 of 1997 which was decided on 4.8.1997. Thereafter the Additional Transport Commissioner passed an order directing the respondents Regional Transport Officers to make appointments in accordance with appointment rules and after following the prescribed procedure .
The admitted case of the parties is that in view of the fact that regular selection had not been made ,therefore, he was appointed as class-IV employee in order to cope with work and therefore, his appointment order specifically stated that it shall be upto a regularly selected candidate is appointed. It is the case of the petitioner that till date of passing of the order of termination, no selected candidate had been made available and that no selection had taken place with respect to the post held by the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded that the order of termination was passed only in view of the fact that he had joined the other petitioners in the earlier writ petition .It is submitted by the petitioner that the order of termination has been passed to accommodate another person of the choice of the appointing authority, the order of termination appears to have been passed in order to substitute an adhoc appointee by another adhoc appointee .
From the counter affidavit this court finds that no selection has taken place till today . The post still exists and clearly it is not the case of the respondents that regularly selected candidate has been appointed. It is not the case of the respondents that selection has taken place and that a regularly selected candidate is now available to work on the post. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit is confined to the fact that the services were purely on adhoc basis and were liable to be terminated at any point of time. The petitioner has in paragraph nos. 20 and 21 categorically stated that the substantive posts are lying vacant and petitioner's appointment is on one of such post. In reply to the contents of paragraph nos. 20 and 21 of the writ petition, the respondents have merely stated that the contents are denied in the manner they have been stated. The said denial is very vague . The appointment letter of the petitioner also indicates that the appointment of the petitioner has been made on a vacant post and it has been made subject to appointment of a regularly selected candidate . The said adhoc appointment is stated to have been made in the public interest so that work may not suffer. The appointment letter states that such appointment is considered essential by the department.
An adhoc appointment cannot be replaced by an adhoc appointment . An adhoc appointee has no right on the post. Such adhoc appointment is governed by the terms of the appointment letter. The first condition of the appointment letter dated 20.8.1997 was as under .
"Jh osn �?".k [kjs iq=k Lo0 ZJh 'kkjnk izlkn [kjs dks dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls pijklh @lQkbZ dkj ds fjDr in ij osru eku :Ik;s 750&12&870 n0 jks0 14&940&00 esa rnFkZ :I ls fu;fer p;u gksus rd dh vof/k ds fy, fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS A **
Admittedly regular selection has not been made. The reason given in the appointment letter for making such adhoc appointment were as under :
";g fu;fqDr jktdh; tufgr esa] dk;ZlEiknu izHkkfor gksus dh vk'kadk esa foHkkx }kjk vfuok;Z le>h x;h gS A**
It has nowhere been stated in the counter affidavit or in the impugned order that such reasons no more exist.
It is not the case of the respondents that the work and conduct of the petitioner was unsatisfactory . In fact in para 18 of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that his work and conduct has been excellent and superb which has always been appreciated by his superior officers. The reply as given in para 12 of the counter affidavit is that the said para needs no comments.
Under such circumstances the services of the petitioner could be terminated without any notice if a regular selection has been made or in case the petitioner was found unfit or that his work and conduct were unsatisfactory.
This writ petition is pending since 2001 and the State respondents have filed counter affidavit. The reason given for condoning the delay is sufficient and the same is condoned. For the reasons as discussed above, the impugned order dated 27.3.1998 is quashed. However, the petitioners re-instatement shall be subject to the condition upon which he was appointed and he shall be entitled to salary only for the period that he works.
With these findings, this writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.