1996 JTR(SC) 1634
1996 Supp JT 384 ; 1998 3 LLJ 577 ; 1997 2 RSJ 740 ; 1996 8 Scale 230 ; 1997 3 SCC 209 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 779 ; 1996 Supp7 SCR 231 ; 1997 1 SCT 453 ; 1997 2 SCT 147 ; 1996 8 SLR 16 ; 1997 1 SLR 107 ; 1996 8 Supreme 82
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KISHORE
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra
DECIDED ON: October 7, 1996
As soon as a duly selected candidate is posted, whether directly or by transfer, the petitioner has to give place to such a candidate.
(A) The principles governing temporary appointments and termination of ad hoc service in public employment, where a position is filled through selection and transfer, are evaluated under the administrative framework for public service commissions and selection boards. The interaction between service rules, the finality of selections, and the obligations of administrative tribunals in enforcing such decisions is examined under the relevant statutes and rules applicable to public service employment in the domain of administrative law.
(B) Key legal principles include the primacy of duly selected candidates for appointment, the ad hoc nature of temporary service without conferment of rights, the inability to claim continued service upon transfer of a selected candidate, and the non-justiciability of such administrative decisions once a qualified replacement is posted.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed temporarily in a Class III medical officer position beyond prescribed rules, with extensions over time. Fearing termination, a writ petition was filed, leading to tribunal intervention directing continuation until a transfer candidate was available. Eventually, a candidate selected by the public service commission was transferred to the petitioner's post, prompting termination of the petitioner's service and dismissal of the challenge.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had no inherent right to the post, and the posting of a duly selected candidate by transfer necessitated the petitioner's vacating the position, rendering the termination valid and non-interfenable.
Issues:
Whether the transfer of a selected candidate to the petitioner's post could lawfully be used to terminate the petitioner's ad hoc service, and whether the tribunal correctly dismissed the challenge to such termination.
Ratio Decidendi:
A temporary appointee holds service only at the pleasure of the administration and is entitled to no more than ad hoc consideration until a duly selected candidate is available; the posting of such a candidate by whatever means (direct or transfer) lawfully terminates the temporary appointment.
Result:
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
(A) The principles governing temporary appointments and termination of ad hoc service in public employment, where a position is filled through selection and transfer, are evaluated under the administrative framework for public service commissions and selection boards. The interaction between service rules, the finality of selections, and the obligations of administrative tribunals in enforcing such decisions is examined under the relevant statutes and rules applicable to public service employment in the domain of administrative law.
(B) Key legal principles include the primacy of duly selected candidates for appointment, the ad hoc nature of temporary service without conferment of rights, the inability to claim continued service upon transfer of a selected candidate, and the non-justiciability of such administrative decisions once a qualified replacement is posted.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed temporarily in a Class III medical officer position beyond prescribed rules, with extensions over time. Fearing termination, a writ petition was filed, leading to tribunal intervention directing continuation until a transfer candidate was available. Eventually, a candidate selected by the public service commission was transferred to the petitioner's post, prompting termination of the petitioner's service and dismissal of the challenge.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had no inherent right to the post, and the posting of a duly selected candidate by transfer necessitated the petitioner's vacating the position, rendering the termination valid and non-interfenable.
Issues:
Whether the transfer of a selected candidate to the petitioner's post could lawfully be used to terminate the petitioner's ad hoc service, and whether the tribunal correctly dismissed the challenge to such termination.
Ratio Decidendi:
A temporary appointee holds service only at the pleasure of the administration and is entitled to no more than ad hoc consideration until a duly selected candidate is available; the posting of such a candidate by whatever means (direct or transfer) lawfully terminates the temporary appointment.
Result:
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
( 1 ) ). The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis dehors the rules as medical Officer in Class III post on 28/2/1990 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 of 1990 in the High court of bombay at Nagpur. The High court had transferred the matter to the administrative tribunal. In TA No. 3559 of 1992, the tribunal by order dated 15/9/1993 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 conferment 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 4/1/1994 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 of 1995 and the tribunal in the impugned order dated 12/4/1996 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 has absolutely no force. As soon as the duly selected candidate is posted, whether directly or 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.