Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1652 (ALL)

GEETA v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-11-12

M.KATJU, RAKESH TIWARI

body2002
M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing paragraph 2 of the G. O. dated 5. 8. 1993, annexure-1 to the writ petition in so far as it states that the demonstrators will be appointed every year in the State Medical Colleges, and on the completion of one year service the service of demonstrators will automatically come to an end. ( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) IN paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the applications were invited for appointment as demonstrator in Bio-Chemistry in G. S. V. M. Medical College, Kanpur vide advertisement dated 25. 8. 1999, vide Annexure-II to the writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as demonstrator in Biochemistry after his selection and given appointment letter dated 19. 11. 1999, vide Annexure-III to the writ petition. In pursuance of the appointment letter, the petitioner joined the post of the demonstrator. The petitioners term was extended up to 19. 11. 2000. True copy of the extension order is Annexure-IV to the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has stated that as yet no regular selection has been held for the post held by the petitioner and she is working to the satisfaction of the authorities which is proved by the recommendation made in her favour vide Annexure-V to the writ petition. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has alleged that she should have been continued in service till regular selection is made. ( 6 ) A perusal of the G. O. dated 5. 8. 1993, Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that it is mentioned in paragraph 2 that a selection will be held every year for the post of demonstrator in state Medical Colleges and the selection will be on the basis of the marks in the M. B. B. S. and the interview. The term of the appointment will be for one year which will automatically come to an end after one year. ( 7 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the post of demonstrator has been made only in those departments of the State Medical Colleges in U. P. where there is no study for the Post Graduate courses. ( 7 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the post of demonstrator has been made only in those departments of the State Medical Colleges in U. P. where there is no study for the Post Graduate courses. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the purpose for creating the aforesaid post of demonstrator is to train the students for higher practical experience in the concerned department where the same is not available through the Post Graduate Degree courses. In the G. O. dated 5. 8. 1993, the tenure of demonstrator has been fixed for one year only. Hence the petitioners appointment was only till February, 2000 but it was extended to 8. 9. 2000, although it was not extendable. The petitioners appointment was purely temporary and on tenure basis and hence, she has no right to continue. ( 8 ) IN paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit, reference has been made to the G. O. dated 6. 9. 1994, in which it is reiterated that the tenure of the post of demonstrator is only one year and the service of the appointee will automatically terminate after one year. This is a policy decision of the Government, and the Courts should be reluctant to intervene with policy decisions unless they are clearly unconstitutional or illegal. We find no illegality in the impugned G. O. The term of the appointment for post of demonstrator is only one year and it is not for this Court to extend the term. ( 9 ) THE petitioners appointment was purely temporary and on a tenure post and hence, she has no right to continue after one year vide Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of U. P. , 2002 (3) AWC 2132 : 2002 (2) ESC 380. ( 10 ) IN our opinion, there is no such legal rule that a temporary or ad hoc appointee is entitled to continue till a regular selection, rather the law is just the contrary, namely, that a temporary employee has no right to the post. This is also the view taken by this Court in Dharmendra kumar Tiwaris case (supra ). ( 11 ) WE, therefore, find no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly. The interim order if any is vacated.