1996 JTR(SC) 1635
1996 8 Scale 230 ; 1997 3 SCC 209 ; 1996 8 Supreme 82
1996(8) Supreme 82
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
D. Kishore -Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 16583-84 of 1996
Decided on 7-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : P.N. Gupta, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Person appointed on temporary basis de hors the rules has no right to the post.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The appointment of the petitioner as a temporary Medical Officer in Class III post was governed under the Service Law, where the initial three-month tenure was extended periodically on ad hoc basis. The appointment lacked confirmation of any right, and the order of termination was subject to the provisions allowing termination upon the availability and posting of a duly selected candidate by the Selection Board or Maharashtra Public Service Commission, ensuring that the ad hoc holder would have to yield to such a transfer as a condition of service.
(B) The key legal principles include that an ad hoc appointee has no vested right to continued service, the posting of a transferred selected candidate does not constitute a separate termination proceeding, and the orders of the Administrative Tribunal on service continuation are binding and enforceable through appropriate legal remedies.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed temporarily as Medical Officer in Class III and served on extended ad hoc basis. A selected candidate, Dr. Solanki, was transferred to the same post based on a prior Tribunal order, leading to the petitioners termination. The petitioner challenged the termination, but the Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had no right to the post and was required to vacate upon the posting of the duly selected transferred candidate, and that the Tribunals order was valid and within its jurisdiction.
Issues:
Whether the posting of a transferred selected candidate could be resisted by the petitioner as a basis for termination, and whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition.
Ratio Decidendi:
An ad hoc appointee serves at the pleasure of the administration and must vacate the post when a duly selected candidate is transferred; the Tribunals order on such termination is final and not open to interference.
Result:
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
(A) The appointment of the petitioner as a temporary Medical Officer in Class III post was governed under the Service Law, where the initial three-month tenure was extended periodically on ad hoc basis. The appointment lacked confirmation of any right, and the order of termination was subject to the provisions allowing termination upon the availability and posting of a duly selected candidate by the Selection Board or Maharashtra Public Service Commission, ensuring that the ad hoc holder would have to yield to such a transfer as a condition of service.
(B) The key legal principles include that an ad hoc appointee has no vested right to continued service, the posting of a transferred selected candidate does not constitute a separate termination proceeding, and the orders of the Administrative Tribunal on service continuation are binding and enforceable through appropriate legal remedies.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed temporarily as Medical Officer in Class III and served on extended ad hoc basis. A selected candidate, Dr. Solanki, was transferred to the same post based on a prior Tribunal order, leading to the petitioners termination. The petitioner challenged the termination, but the Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had no right to the post and was required to vacate upon the posting of the duly selected transferred candidate, and that the Tribunals order was valid and within its jurisdiction.
Issues:
Whether the posting of a transferred selected candidate could be resisted by the petitioner as a basis for termination, and whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition.
Ratio Decidendi:
An ad hoc appointee serves at the pleasure of the administration and must vacate the post when a duly selected candidate is transferred; the Tribunals order on such termination is final and not open to interference.
Result:
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
ORDER
The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis de hors the rules as Medical Officer in Class III post on February 28, 1990 for a period of three months and it was extended from time to time. Apprehending termination of his service, he filed Writ Petition No. 2661/90 in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur. The High Court had transferred the matter to the Administrative Tribunal. In T.A. No. 3559/92, the Tribunal by order dated September 15, 1993 directed that the petitioner may be allowed to continue until the duly selected candidates by the Selection Board or Maharashtra Public Service Commission were available and appointed; his continuance in service was only on ad hoc basis without confirment of any right including the requirement of notice before terminating the service; at best, he would be entitled to be considered along with other candidates and as soon as the duly selected candidate is appointed, his service was liable to be terminated even without notice. By proceedings dated January 4, 1994 one Dr. S.S. Solanki, Medical Officer, Class III who was selected by the Public Service Commission was posted by transfer at his request in place of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination in OA No. 400/95 and the Tribunal in the impugned order dated April 12, 1996 dismissed the petition. Thus, these special leave petitions.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since vacancies are existing the appointment of Dr. Solanki by transfer could not be used as a means to terminate the service of the petitioner. We fail to appreciate the contention. It is fairly agreed by the learned counsel that the petitioner has no right to the post and as soon as a duly selected candidate is posted in his place, he has to give place to the duly selected candidate. But his contention is that since Dr. Solanki was selected earlier to the order passed by the Tribunal and had been appointed on his transfer, it cannot be used as a means to terminate the services of the petitioner. His contention absolutely has no force. As soon as the duly selected candidate is posted, whether directly by transfer, necessarily the petitioner has to give place to such a candidate. The petitions, therefore, do not merit interference.
3. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
SLP dismissed.
*******