IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4826 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMUBHAI AMRITBHAI PATEL Versus GENERAL MANAGER -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 4826 of 1990 MR MUKESH R SHAH for Petitioner No. 1-5 MR UDAY BHATT, AGP for Respondent No. 1-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 07/02/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE A.L. DAVE) 1. The petitioners herein have, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to absorb the petitioners permanently on permanent posts by quashing and setting aside the action of the respondents in nature of terminating/relieving the petitioners. The petitioners were appointed on purely temporary/ad-hoc basis on the post of Enumerator. The appointment letter clearly indicated that the appointment was purely temporary and ad-hoc and subject to termination without assigning any reasons and without notice, and that the appointment was only for a period of six months. Their services came to be terminated/the petitioners came to be relieved by virtue of order dated the 31st May, 1990, which prompted them to prefer this petition on the 5th July, 1990. 2. Having regard to the above factual aspects and the law, as settled, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs that they have sought. They cannot seek any mandate from this Court for their appointment on permanent posts when their appointment was temporary and when they have approached the Court after about a month from the date of termination. Differently put, on the date of employment, they were not in employment. The appointment was for a fixed period. Having regard to all these aspects, there is no substance in the petition and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharge with no order as to costs. [ A. L. DAVE, J. ] gt