IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 326 of 2011 Date of Decision: July 7, 2011 Prem Nath Bhandari …Appellant Versus Punjab School Education Board and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 18.5.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that termination of the services of the appel- lant did not suffer from any legal lacuna because he was never ap- pointed on a sanctioned post of Clerk and his services remained ad hoc. 2. It has come on record that the appellant was appointed as an ad hoc Clerk on 4.11.1980 and his period of service had been extended from time to time. For a short period he worked as an As- sistant Project Officer from 19.7.1983 to 30.11.1983. However, he came back as a Clerk on ad hoc basis. Eventually, his services were terminated on 10.11.1988 (P-8). The aforesaid order was chal- lenged in the writ petition filed in the year 1989. In the order of ter- LPA No. 326 of 2011 mination it has been recorded that his work and conduct was not satisfactory. The view of the learned Single Judge is available in paras 3 and 4, which reads thus: “3. The case which has been instituted in the year 1989 comes up for disposal after two decades and to this Court, the most predominant consideration before a person could be rein- stated in State service is whether the petitioner had any service that could qualify for demanding reinstatement. The respondent is a public body and the appointment could not have been otherwise than through recruitment rules. If the petitioner's employment was to a sanctioned post or the petitioner held a permanent post, the termination of service could be complained of. If, on the other hand, the petitioner was on a temporary post and liable to be ter- minated on certain contingencies, the termination could not be successfully challenged and the prayer for reinstatement could not become possible. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that several other persons, who had been appointed on temporary basis, had subsequently obtained regular service and only he was singled out for being terminated from service. 4. With no material available for the petitioner to con- tend that there is any permanent post to which the petitioner could be absorbed. I do not find it meritorious to avail to the petitioner a right to claim reinstatement by having the impugned order can- celled. The challenge to the mala fides of the decision is justified on the ground that the Chairman of the Board is also made person- ally a party as the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has not filed any independent written statement but it is contended that even 2 LPA No. 326 of 2011 apart from an occasion when a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner, there was yet another occasion when there was a complaint against the quality of work of the petitioner when a person, who had passed out, had been entered as having failed by the negligent conduct of the petitioner. A detailed enquiry was alleged to have been held and a report was submitted to the Chair- man on 12.10.1988 when it was reported that some candidates, who had been declared as failed, actually had “compartments”. Situations which could have enabled the petitioner to obtain re- consideration of the whole matter by directing an enquiry to be conducted obtains no meaning at this length of time for a person, who held merely a temporary service. The case has stood down such a long time perhaps for no fault of the petitioner but before a decision could be given providing to the petitioner the continuity of service and reinstatement, there ought to be a strong basis that even apart from some technical flaw, there is something substan- tial for the petitioner to stake his claim for his employment.” 3. Mr. Baljinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge is influenced by the fact that the writ petition was instituted more than 20 years back, which cannot constitute a valid basis for dismissal of the writ petition. He has also pointed out that termination of the services of the appellant was actuated by mala fide. 4. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that appointment of the appellant has never been to a sanctioned post and as a consequence no grievance could be made because the appellant would have no right to hold the 3 LPA No. 326 of 2011 post. It has further been found that appointment was never made in accor- dance with the rules and, therefore, his temporary status could not be con- verted into permanent status. Even if we ignore the observation made by the learned Single Judge with regard to 20 years delay in disposal of the writ peti- tion, there is no substantive legal right with the appellant to claim that his ter- mination was against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitu- tion. Even the allegation of mala fide would not come to his rescue. There- fore, the appeal is devoid of merit and does not warrant admission. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) July 7, 2011 JUDGE PKapoor 4