ORDER 1. Under an offer dated 7-8-1990 (Annexure-A), the petitioner was appointed as a Second Division Clerk by the Managing Director of the respondent-Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited (in short 'the Corporation') on purely temporary basis for four months on a consolidated salary of Rs. 800/- + Rs. 60/- as medical allowance. In the said offer itself it was clearly mentioned that the appointment is liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason therefore by giving seven days notice or in lieu thereof seven days salary. Under condition No. 8 of the offer the petitioner was obliged to serve the Corporation and promote its interest to the best of his ability and skill. Petitioner's temporary appointment was extended from time to time, but ultimately by an office order dated 31-1-1998 (Annexure-F) passed by the respondent-Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation temporary appointment of the petitioner was terminated in terms of Clause 3 of the offer at Annexure-A by tendering him a cheque for Rs. 515/- towards seven days notice. Being aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondents have retained other persons appointed on temporary basis even after the petitioner was appointed, but the same privilege had been denied to him without any good reason. Along with the writ petition he has filed a list of all the persons who had been appointed by the respondent-Managing Director between 1987 to 1992 on different posts like that of second division clerk, typists, drivers, watchmen, seed processing assistants (in short "S.P.A."). So far as details of the temporary appointment as second division clerks are concerned those are as follows: Sl. No. Name of employee Design­ation Date of work on temporary basis Place of working 1. M. Booramano SDC 5-10-1987 Dharwar 2. J.L. Naik SDC 9-6-1988 Sirsi 3. Lakshmi SDC 5-9-1988 Head Office 4. Kantharaju SDC 12-12-1988 Bellary 5. E.B. Thammaniyappa SDC 13-8-1990 Shimoga 6. S.V. Kadanagowdar SDC 13-8-1990 Naragund 7. N. Leelavathi SDC 29-8-1990 Head Office 3. Out of the above persons temporarily employed Sri M. Booramano, who is at Serial No. 1, has already expired and Sri Kantharaju, who is at Sl. No. 4, has been terminated because of initiation of criminal cases against him. E.B. Thammaniyappa SDC 13-8-1990 Shimoga 6. S.V. Kadanagowdar SDC 13-8-1990 Naragund 7. N. Leelavathi SDC 29-8-1990 Head Office 3. Out of the above persons temporarily employed Sri M. Booramano, who is at Serial No. 1, has already expired and Sri Kantharaju, who is at Sl. No. 4, has been terminated because of initiation of criminal cases against him. Out of the remaining, except the petitioner, all other four have been appointed on permanent basis in terms of Rule 7(b) of the Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited Service Rules, 1980 (in short "the Rules"). Under Rule 6(b) only the Board of the Corporation can make appointments on permanent basis for the posts falling under categories I, II and III and that too subject to recommendations of the recruitment committee constituted by the Board. Admittedly, the post of second division clerks falls under Category-lit, therefore the regular appointment for the post under this category could have been made only by the Board. Clause (c) of Rule 6 empowers the Managing Director to give temporary appointments for the period upto six months, which reads as under: "Rule 6(c).--Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 6 the Managing Director shall be entitled to make appointment on temporary/contract basis to any post, the maximum basic pay of which in time scale does not exceed Rs. 1,300/- per month for a period of 6 months and also to extend the term of such appointment for a further period not exceeding 6 months on each occasion". It appears that the temporary appointments are made, considering the immediate need of the Corporation for its different branches spread over throughout the State, by the Managing Director by exercise of the aforesaid powers which had been extended from time to time. Rule 7(b) of the Rules provides that: "Rule 7(b).--An employee who has served in the Corporation in a temporary capacity for a period not less than five years in any post continuously may be considered for appointment in that post on permanent basis, provided the creation of that post is found essential for the Corporation and approved by the Board." 4. For the present, keeping in view the said rules, the Board, after having assessed the functioning of the persons temporarily appointed, has accorded appointment on permanent basis to four out of five temporarily appointed second division clerks during the year 1995-96. But the petitioner was not favoured with the same. For the present, keeping in view the said rules, the Board, after having assessed the functioning of the persons temporarily appointed, has accorded appointment on permanent basis to four out of five temporarily appointed second division clerks during the year 1995-96. But the petitioner was not favoured with the same. He was allowed to continue on temporary basis. The petitioner did not raise any grievance with regard to the said action of the respondent. Ultimately, he has been subjected to the present order of termination. 5. In the said view of the matter, at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance that since in 1995-96 permanent appointments were given to the other persons who were appointed on temporary basis, one of whom namely Smt. N. Leelavathi was appointed two weeks later to the petitioner, in preference to him. Possibly, keeping in view various adverse reports against the petitioner he knew his difficulty in his staking any claim of this nature. Therefore, such ground, is now not available to the petitioner for assailing the impugned order of his termination. 6. So far as the reliance on Rule 7(b) of the Rules is concerned, it is merely an enabling provision under which the Corporation can consider the desirability for giving appointment to temporary employees under certain conditions. This does not create any right in the person who has worked on temporary basis for a period of five years or more. It is the authority given to the Corporation which has to be exercised by taking note of totality of the performance of the temporary employee. If the Corporation finds that overall performance of the temporary employee was not satisfactory and is unfit to be absorbed on permanent basis, then it is always open for the Board to exercise its right of not extending his temporary period which will lead to his termination. Pursuant to the Court's direction the Managing Director of the Corporation has filed an additional statement of objections setting out the circumstances which led to termination simpliciter of the petitioner in terms of offer of appointment. 7. It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Pursuant to the Court's direction the Managing Director of the Corporation has filed an additional statement of objections setting out the circumstances which led to termination simpliciter of the petitioner in terms of offer of appointment. 7. It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Devendra Kumar Jain and Others, JT (1995) 1 SC 198, that - "A plain reading of these two orders will go to show that the appointments were made purely on temporary basis and their services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice or assigning any reason. In the case of appointment on temporary basis a servant who is so appointed does not acquire any substantive-right to the post, even though the post itself may be permanent and it is an implied term of such appointment that it may be terminable at any time and without notice. A temporary Government servant does not become a permanent Government servant unless he acquires that capacity by force of any rule or he is declared or appointed as a permanent servant. In the present case there is no rule under which the respondents may be deemed to have become permanent by force of such rule nor they were so declared by any subsequent order of the appellant-Company to have acquired that status. On the contrary, the respondents all along continued to be temporary and according to the terms of the order of appointment their services could be terminated at any time without any notice or assigning any reasons. In such a case it is not necessary to follow the formalities contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution. In these facts and circumstances the High Court was not right in holding that the respondents were entitled for being heard before passing the said order of termination of their services and that the order of termination was bad in law on that account", 8. For the said reasons the petitioner is not entitled to relief claimed. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.