JUDGMENT G. P. Mathur, J.—This special appeal has been preferred by the Secretary, Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad and Dr. J. K. Gupta, Medical Superintendent of the Hospital, against the orders dated 21.3.2001 and 11.1.2002 of a learned single Judge in C.M. Writ Petition No. 10370 of 2001. Dr. Alok Singh (respondent No. 1 in the appeal) was initially appointed as a House Surgeon in Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the Hospital) for a fixed period from 1.1.1999 to 30.6.1999. His appointment was extended twice and the last extension was given from 1.1.2001 to 28.2.2001. Thereafter, he was given a notice that his tenure as house surgeon will come to an end on 28.2.2001 and, accordingly, he may complete No Dues formalities and he may vacate the Doctors’ Hostel. He then filed the writ petition, giving rise to the present appeal, praying that the notice dated 28.2.2001 may be quashed and the respondents in the writ petition may be restrained not to create any hurdle in his completion of course of Diploma in Child Health and further he may not be required to vacate the Hostel. The learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition for admission on 21.3.2001, directed for issuance of notice to the appellants in the present appeal and also passed the following order on the same day : “..............Until further orders of this Court, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as House Surgeon in the Department of Paediatrics on the consolidated salary which was payable to him and the petitioner shall continue to reside in Doctor’s Hostel in room No. 14 of Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad and the effect and operation of the order dated 28.2.2001 and 16.3.2001, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed. The respondents are further directed to permit the petitioner to complete his diploma in Child Health which will come to an end on 31.12.2001.” 2. The writ petitioner moved an application on which the following order was passed on 11.1.2002 : “Heard Shri Vishwa Ratan Dwivedi learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Piyush Bhargav learned counsel for the respondents. By interim order dated 21.3.2001, the petitioner was permitted to stay in the Hostel of Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad till the Diploma in Child Health comes to an end. Earlier the date of completion of course was mentioned as 31.12.2001. By interim order dated 21.3.2001, the petitioner was permitted to stay in the Hostel of Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad till the Diploma in Child Health comes to an end. Earlier the date of completion of course was mentioned as 31.12.2001. Therefore, the interim order was restricted till 31.12.2001. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that the examination of Diploma in Child Health has not yet been held. The stay order is extended and the petitioner is permitted to stay in the Hostel till the Examination are held. However, it is made clear that as soon as the examinations are over the petitioner will vacate the hostel and he shall not wait for the declaration of result of the examination.” The present special appeal has been preferred challenging the above quoted orders dated 21.3.2001 and 11.1.2002. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable and no interim order could be passed in favour of the writ petitioner. It has also been submitted that the appellants (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition) had filed counter-affidavit in the writ petition on 2.5.2001 and no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the writ petitioner till now. However, he moved an application for extension of the stay order on which an order was passed on 7.1.2002 for listing it in the next cause list. Before the matter could be listed the writ petitioner filed another application on 9.1.2002 on which the impugned order dated 11.1.2002 was passed by which the ex parte stay order has been extended though the writ petition has not been admitted. Learned counsel has further submitted that the writ petitioner was given a time bound appointment which came to an end on 28.2.2001, and, in view of these facts, the direction issued by the learned single Judge to continue the writ petitioner as House Surgeon in the Hospital and to pay him salary and further to allow him to stay in the Hostel is wholly illegal. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders have rightly been passed and there is no ground to interfere with the same. 4. We may first consider the question of maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders have rightly been passed and there is no ground to interfere with the same. 4. We may first consider the question of maintainability of the writ petition. It is averred in the counter-affidavit that Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital is a society, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on 24.9.1937. The memorandum of association of the society has also been filed as Annexure-C.A.-1 to the counter-affidavit. The Hospital was initially founded by Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru in the memory of his wife, late Smt. Kamla Nehru. Eminent personalities of the country of the time were members of the Board of Trustee of the Hospital. Apart from Pt. Nehru, it included Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya, Dr. Kailas Nath Katju, Dr. B. C. Roy of Calcutta, Dr. Jivraj N. Mehta, Smt. Khursheed Naoroji, Shriyut Jal A. D. Naoroji and, Shriyut Jamnalal Bajaj of Bombay and some others. The Hospital was taken over by the Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Fund on 16.2.1975 and, thereafter, by the State Government on 30.4.1977. However, on 29.5.1980, the Hospital was transferred back to the Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Fund by the State Government and finally it was transferred to the Kamla Nehru Memorial Society. The question whether a writ petition is maintainable against Kamla Nehru Memorial Society was examined in considerable detail in C.M. Writ Petition No. 4911 of 1991 and a learned single Judge by his judgment and order dated 22.7.1991 held that the Hospital was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and a writ petition filed by an employee was not maintainable. Special Appeal No. 180 of 1991 preferred against the aforesaid judgment and order was dismissed by a Division Bench on 3.4.1995. Copies of these judgments have been filed along with stay application in the appeal. In view of these pronouncements, the writ petition preferred by Dr. Alok Kumar Singh (respondent No. 1 in the appeal) is not maintainable and no interim order could have been passed in his favour. 5. The last appointment order appointing the writ petitioner as House Surgeon in the Hospital was issued on 5.1.2001, which contains the terms and conditions of the appointment and condition Nos. 1 to 3 are being reproduced below : “(1) Your appointment is effective from 1st January, 2001. 5. The last appointment order appointing the writ petitioner as House Surgeon in the Hospital was issued on 5.1.2001, which contains the terms and conditions of the appointment and condition Nos. 1 to 3 are being reproduced below : “(1) Your appointment is effective from 1st January, 2001. (2) Your appointment is on temporary basis only for a period from 1st January, 2001 to 28th February, 2001 which may be extended or reduced at the sole discretion of the Competent Authority. (3) Your services can be terminated at any time by giving one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu of notice on either side/without any notice and without assigning any reason.” 6. In the appointment order, it was mentioned that if the writ petitioner was willing to accept the offer on the terms and conditions mentioned therein, he should return the duplicate copy of the letter after signing the same. The writ petitioner gave his acceptance and the same reads as under : “(i) I hereby accept the offer of appointment to the Post of House Surgeon in the Department of Paediatrics, Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad, on the terms and conditions specified above.” 7. The appointment order clearly shows that it was for a fixed period i.e., from 1.1.2001 to 28.2.2001. The appointment was not extended any further. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order by which he was informed that his appointment is not being extended. In Director, Institute of Management Development, U. P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, 1992 (3) AWC 1827 (SC) : AIR 1992 SC 2070 , it has been held as follows : “Where the appointment is purely on ad hoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to continue in the post. This is so even if the person is continued from time to time on ‘ad hoc’ basis for more than a year. He cannot claim regularisation in service on basis that he was appointed on ad hoc basis for more than a year.” 8. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appointment given to the writ petitioner on 1.1.2001 was only upto 28.2.2001 and the same has not been extended. He cannot claim regularisation in service on basis that he was appointed on ad hoc basis for more than a year.” 8. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appointment given to the writ petitioner on 1.1.2001 was only upto 28.2.2001 and the same has not been extended. In view of the above quoted pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the writ petitioner can have no right to continue on the post. In these circumstances, the orders passed by the learned single Judge by which a direction was issued to the Hospital to continue the writ petitioner as House Surgeon and to pay him salary is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent (Dr. Alok Singh) has submitted that his client was pursuing a course of Diploma in Child Health for which he was registered with the Indian College of Maternal and Child Health (for short, the I.C.M.C.H.) and the examination of the course is likely to take place shortly and if he was not allowed to continue as House Surgeon in the Hospital, his studies would be seriously affected and he may not be able to complete the course. We are unable to accept the submission made. The papers filed along with the writ petition show that the I.C.M.C.H. is a society formed by some doctors which has been registered under the Societies Registration Act in Calcutta and it is a wholly private body. There is no averment in the writ petition that it is recognised by the Indian Medical Council for imparting education for a Diploma in Child Health or has been granted permission for starting such a course of study which is mandatory under Sections 10A and 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Similarly, there is no averment in the writ petition that the society is affiliated to any University or any other institution which may be legally empowered to award a diploma. Similarly, there is no averment in the writ petition that the society is affiliated to any University or any other institution which may be legally empowered to award a diploma. Section 3 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 (Act No. 7 of 1916) provides that the right of conferring, granting or issuing in the States degrees, diplomas, licences, certificates or other documents stating or implying that the holder, grantee or recipient thereof is qualified to practise western medical science, shall be exercisable only by the authorities specified in the Schedule, and by such other authority as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions and restrictions as it thinks fit to impose, authorise in this behalf. Despite opportunity having been given for this purpose the writ petitioner has not been able to show any document to the effect that I.C.M.C.H. has been granted recognition by the Indian Medical Council or it is affiliated to any University or Institute which may have the authority to grant the diploma as laid down in Indian Medical Degrees Act. 10. It is averred in the counter-affidavit that the writ petitioner had been appointed in the Hospital only as a House Surgeon and the authorities of the Hospital had no knowledge regarding his continuing any course with the I.C.M.C.H. It has also been averred that the Hospital is under no obligation to allow the writ petitioner to work as House Surgeon solely on the ground that he was pursuing any course with the I.C.M.C.H. It is the specific case of the appellants that the writ petitioner can complete his course in Diploma in Child Health with I.C.M.C.H. without doing the job of House Surgeon in the Hospital. The writ petitioner has not filed any rejoinder-affidavit to controvert the aforesaid averments made in the counter-affidavit. The learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) has not been able to explain as to how a person working in a hospital in Allahabad can pursue a course of study with a body situate in Calcutta. This shows that I.C.M.C.H. is awarding some sort of a diploma without any teaching. It has also been stated from the side of the appellants that Dr. This shows that I.C.M.C.H. is awarding some sort of a diploma without any teaching. It has also been stated from the side of the appellants that Dr. J. B. Rai, who is shown to be guide of the writ petitioner in some of the documents filed by him, is not on the staff of Hospital and is merely a visiting consultant. No material has been placed before us to show that merely pursuing of a course with the I.C.M.C.H., which is a wholly private organisation situate in Calcutta, can give any kind of right to the writ petitioner to compel the Hospital at Allahabad to allow him to continue as House Surgeon and to pay him salary. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent has absolutely no merit. 11. In view of the reasons given above, the special appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. However, we consider it proper that the writ petitioner may be allowed to work as House Surgeon in the Hospital till 28.2.2002 so that he may not have any apprehension that he would not be permitted to appear in the examination which may be conducted by the I.C.M.C.H., though the apprehension is wholly baseless. 12. In the result, the special appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The interim orders dated 21.3.2001 and 11.1.2002 passed by the learned single Judge are set aside. The appellants will, however, permit the writ petitioner to work as House Surgeon in the Hospital till 28.2.2002 or till the examination, whichever is earlier. The writ petitioner would not be entitled to any salary and he shall vacate the hostel of the Hospital forthwith. 13. The office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to Indian Medical Council, New Delhi, which may hold an enquiry as to how Indian College of Maternal and Child Health, Calcutta, is awarding diplomas in medical sciences.