JUDGMENT : I.A. No.897 of 2021 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 81 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard the parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 81 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 897 of 2021 stands allowed. L.P.A. No.15 of 2020 5. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 03.09.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.242 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the order dated 15.12.2008 by which the service of the writ petitioner has been dispensed with, has been declined to be interfered with. 6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- It is the case of the writ petitioner that an advertisement was issued by the Respondent No.1 for appointment on the post of Lecturer in the Department of Applied Chemistry in the Birla Institute of Technology in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13,500/-. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner being eligible in all respects, applied for appointment on the said post. The interview letter was issued to the petitioner whereupon the Selection Committee decided to appoint the petitioner and as such, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (Department of Applied Chemistry) in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13,500/- vide letter of appointment dated 07.06.2007. However, in the appointment letter, there was a condition that the petitioner will be on probation for a period of one year and would be eligible for confirmation in the post subject to satisfactory completion of the probation period. Pursuant to the said appointment letter, the petitioner submitted his joining on 11.07.2007 which was accepted and thereafter, his pay was fixed. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Ranchi to Deoghar at BIT Mesra, Extension Centre by office order dated 28.03.2008. The petitioner submitted his joining on 10.04.2008 at Deoghar Extension Centre and his joining was accepted by the competent authority at Deoghar. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Ranchi to Deoghar at BIT Mesra, Extension Centre by office order dated 28.03.2008. The petitioner submitted his joining on 10.04.2008 at Deoghar Extension Centre and his joining was accepted by the competent authority at Deoghar. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he completed successful satisfactory service of one year as Lecturer even though no formal order was issued in this respect and the respondent authorities by memo dated 15.12.2008, terminated the services of the petitioner without even asking a show cause for the petitioner. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 15.12.2008, has invoked the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.242 of 2009. The respondents have appeared on being called upon and took the ground that there is no infirmity in the impugned order since the service of the writ petitioner not been confirmed, his service has been treated to be temporary in view of the provision of Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology and by taking recourse, as made available therein, the service of the writ petitioner has been terminated after giving one month’s notice. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the nature of appointment as also the provision as contained under Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology, has refused to interfere with the impugned order of termination by dismissing the writ petition, against which the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 7. Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant, has submitted that the order of termination dated 15.12.2008 cannot be construed to be justified decision reason being that there is no communication to the writ petitioner about rendering of his unsatisfactory service but the probation period has not been extended and subsequently, after allowing the writ petitioner to work even beyond the period of one year, his service has been terminated. According to the learned counsel, the moment the period of one year, which was probation period as per the offer of appointment dated 15.12.2008, was extended by allowing the writ petitioner to perform his duty, it will be construed that he has been confirmed in service and, as such, the writ petitioner cannot be dealt with by taking recourse of the provision of Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology. But the learned Single Judge has not appreciated this aspect of the matter while dismissing the writ petition. 8. Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Birla Institute of Technology, has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge taking the plea that since the service of the writ petitioner was not confirmed, his status will be of temporary employee and the moment the status of the service of the writ petitioner has come under the nature of temporary employee, will be dealt with under the provision of Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has found no infirmity in the impugned order of termination dated 15.12.2008. 9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 10. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the writ petitioner has been appointed on the post of Lecturer (Department of Applied Chemistry) in the Birla Institute of Technology vide offer of appointment dated 07.06.2007. The aforesaid appointment letter contains a condition that the writ petitioner will be on probation for a period of one year and would be eligible for confirmation in the post subject to satisfactory completion of the probation period. For ready reference, the condition stipulated in the offer of appointment is extracted and reproduced hereunder:- “He will be on probation for a period of One year and would be eligible for confirmation in the post subject to satisfactory completion of the probation period.” It is admitted fact that the service of the writ petitioner has not been confirmed as also the probation period has not been extended. However, he has been allowed to carry out his service beyond the period of one year. The respondent – Birla Institute of Technology has terminated the writ petitioner from service vide order dated 15.12.2008 on the ground that the probation period of one year was completed on 10.07.2008 but his service was not confirmed and, therefore, he is deemed to have continued on temporary basis till date as per the provision of Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology. The competent authority, in the aforesaid background, has decided not to utilize his services any further and he has been decided to be relieved from 31.12.2008. However, he has been held entitled to pay and allowances, as applicable for and upto 15th January, 2009. 11. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the writ petitioner by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.242 of 2009. The issue has been raised that the writ petitioner is not coming under the fold of the provision of Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology. 12. This Court, in order to answer the aforesaid issue, requires to consider the provision of Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology, which has been appended in the supplementary affidavit, wherein it has been provided under the caption heading “Terms and Conditions of Service of Permanent Employees” which contains a sub-clause that the appointing authority shall have the power to extend the period of probation of any employee of the Institute for such periods as may be found necessary, provided that if after the period of probation, the official is not confirmed, and, his probation is also not formally extended, it shall be deemed to have continued on a temporary basis and that his services may then be terminable on a month’s notice or on payment of a months salary in lieu thereof. For ready reference the aforesaid provision is being referred hereunder :- “13. (3) The appointing authority shall have the power to extend the period of probation of any employee of the Institute for such periods as may be found necessary, provided that if after the period of probation, the official is not confirmed, and, his probation is also not formally extended, it shall be deemed to have continued on a temporary basis and that his services may then be terminable on a month’s notice or on payment of a months salary in lieu thereof.” 13. Now coming to the fact of this case, it is admitted that the writ petitioner was appointed vide letter of appointment dated 07.06.2007, which contains a condition to the effect that the writ petitioner will be on probation for a period of one year and would be eligible for confirmation in the post subject to satisfactory completion of the probation period. The writ petitioner was neither confirmed in the service nor was his probation period extended. The writ petitioner was neither confirmed in the service nor was his probation period extended. The aforesaid fact is not in dispute, rather, admitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant. It is also not in dispute that when the service of the writ petitioner has neither been confirmed nor his probation has been extended, his further continuation in service will be deemed to be on temporary basis, as would appear from the Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology. It also appears from the aforesaid Regulation that power has been conferred upon the appointing authority to dispense with the service of the temporary employee but subject to condition of a month’s notice or on payment of a month’s salary in lieu thereof. 14. Admittedly herein, the writ petitioner was not confirmed nor the probation period was extended and, as such, his status after completion of the period of one year will be of temporary basis. The competent authority has decided not to utilize the services of the writ petitioner any further and, therefore, resorted to the provision of Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology and has issued the impugned memo dated 15.12.2008. 15. The position of law is well settled that the employee working on temporary basis cannot have a right to remain in service if his service is not required by the employer. 16. The employer herein has already made a provision to that effect in Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology and in such circumstances, when the service of the writ petitioner has been converted to the nature of temporary and decided not to be utilized, in that circumstances, if the impugned decision has been taken, it cannot be said to suffer from an error. 17. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect, has scrutinized the order passed by the learned Single Judge wherefrom it is evident that the learned Single Judge has considered the applicability of the provision of Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology as also considered the nature of the service of the writ petitioner on temporary basis after completion of period of one year being not confirmed. As such, in that circumstances, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned order which, according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 18. As such, in that circumstances, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned order which, according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 18. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.