State of U.P. and Anr. Vs. Ram Adhar
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5691 of 2002
[From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow in S.A. No. 185/2001]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow in S.A. No. 185/2001]
Petitioner: State of U.P. and Anr.
Respondent: Ram Adhar
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5691 of 2002
[From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow in S.A. No. 185/2001]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow in S.A. No. 185/2001]
Judges: H.K. Sema & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 10, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. Fuzail Khan, Mr. Sehdev Singh, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Advocates for the Appellants.
Ms. K. Sharda Devi, Advocate for the Respondent.
Ms. K. Sharda Devi, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
Civil Laws
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 14, 16, 226 – Temporary appointment – Appointment made for 3 months – Extended twice – Appeared in test, but failed. Held, that he has no right to continue till a regular selection is made. Kaushal Kishore’s case referred. (Para 5)
Ed: Case related to temporary appointment of stenographer in a court of law.
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 14, 16, 226 – Temporary appointment – Appointment made for 3 months – Extended twice – Appeared in test, but failed. Held, that he has no right to continue till a regular selection is made. Kaushal Kishore’s case referred. (Para 5)
Ed: Case related to temporary appointment of stenographer in a court of law.
Cases Reffered:
1. State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore [JT 1991 (1) SC 108] (referred) (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal filed by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.08.2001 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The respondent herein was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Stenographer for a period of three months. The time was extended twice and ultimately, the respondent also appeared in the test but failed. The respondent preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The same was disposed by the learned Single Judge allowing the respondent to continue till the regularly selected Stenographer joins the post. The same was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
4. While issuing notice on 15.10.2001 this Court stayed both the orders of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge. In view of the interim order, the respondent is no more in service today. Even otherwise an ad hoc appointee appointed for a period of three months as Stenographer, whose term is further extended, should not be allowed to continue in the public interest when he failed in the test.
5. It may be mentioned that there is no principle of law that a person appointed in a temporary capacity has a right to continue till a regular selection Rather, the legal position is just the reverse, that is, that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore [JT 1991 (1) SC 108 ; 1991 (1) SCC 691. Hence, he has no right to continue even for a day as of right, far from having a right to continue till a regular appointment.
6. On this sole ground we set aside both the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. This appeal is allowed. No costs.
7. Before parting with this case we would like to mention that very often selection and appointments are made on posts requiring special skills like that of a stenographer. On such posts the only criterion should be merit. However, very often such appointments are not made on merit but on some recommendations, and such appointees are very often incompetent.
8. If an incompetent stenographer is appointed for the Court the result will be that the correct order passed by the Judge will not be recorded, and this will create many problems. Much of the time of the Judge will be spent on making corrections. Hence great care must be taken by the selection committee for selecting persons to be appointed on posts requiring special skills like that of a stenographer purely on merit disregarding any recommendation made by anyone, howsoever high.
1. This appeal filed by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.08.2001 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The respondent herein was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Stenographer for a period of three months. The time was extended twice and ultimately, the respondent also appeared in the test but failed. The respondent preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The same was disposed by the learned Single Judge allowing the respondent to continue till the regularly selected Stenographer joins the post. The same was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
4. While issuing notice on 15.10.2001 this Court stayed both the orders of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge. In view of the interim order, the respondent is no more in service today. Even otherwise an ad hoc appointee appointed for a period of three months as Stenographer, whose term is further extended, should not be allowed to continue in the public interest when he failed in the test.
5. It may be mentioned that there is no principle of law that a person appointed in a temporary capacity has a right to continue till a regular selection Rather, the legal position is just the reverse, that is, that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore [JT 1991 (1) SC 108 ; 1991 (1) SCC 691. Hence, he has no right to continue even for a day as of right, far from having a right to continue till a regular appointment.
6. On this sole ground we set aside both the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. This appeal is allowed. No costs.
7. Before parting with this case we would like to mention that very often selection and appointments are made on posts requiring special skills like that of a stenographer. On such posts the only criterion should be merit. However, very often such appointments are not made on merit but on some recommendations, and such appointees are very often incompetent.
8. If an incompetent stenographer is appointed for the Court the result will be that the correct order passed by the Judge will not be recorded, and this will create many problems. Much of the time of the Judge will be spent on making corrections. Hence great care must be taken by the selection committee for selecting persons to be appointed on posts requiring special skills like that of a stenographer purely on merit disregarding any recommendation made by anyone, howsoever high.
