IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.7667 OF 2010 Date:18-04-2011 Between:- Pulapaka Ramakrishna Rao .. Petitioner And M/s.Bharat Electronics Ltd., rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Bangalore and others. .. Respondents ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as a permanent employee of the respondent Company with all the consequential benefits including scale that is applicable to such officers appointed on permanent basis or in the alternative, to direct the respondents to treat him as a permanent part-time employee with all the consequential benefits till his date of retirement. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is working as Visiting Medical Officer in respondent No.1 unit at Machilipatnam since 1986 and that he is permanent incumbent to the said post. A notification was issued by the respondent Corporation and he applied for it. By letter dated 14.05.1986, he intimated respondent Company that he would attend the interview for appointment of Medical Officer and requested him to inform the date and place of the same. Through letter, dated 24.10.1986, the respondent Company had intimated him that there would be an interview for selection of Medical Officer for the said unit on 27.10.1986. He attended the interview on 27.10.1986. Later, through letter, dated 28.10.1986, he was informed that he was selected to the post of Medical Officer for the said unit by a selection committee duly constituted by the respondent Company. He has been working since 23 years. The respondent Company issued a fresh advertisement for appointment of Part Time Medical Officers in his place. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The same was resisted by the respondents by filing counter affidavit stating that respondent No.4 is the branch of respondent No.1. With a view to provide first aid and to attend immediate necessities of the employees, respondent No.4 informed the local doctors vide letter, dated 06.05.1986, that the company was considering to appoint Visiting Medical Officer with four hours working time with a proposed remuneration of Rs.500/- per month. The petitioner made an application to respondent No.4 on 14.05.1986 and expressed his willingness to attend the interview. The company intimated him through letter, dated 24.10.1986, that there would be an interview for the selection of the said post on 27.10.1986. The petitioner attended the interview on 27.10.1986. Respondent No.4 informed the petitioner vide letter, dated 28.10.1986, that the selection committee selected him for appointment for the job of Visiting Medical Officer, which is neither a regular post nor a cadre post. It was also informed through the same letter that the terms and conditions would be intimated shortly. The petitioner reported for duty on 29.10.1986. On 13.12.1986, respondent No.4 has indicated duties and responsibilities through letter, dated 13.12.1986, to the petitioner. Though it was not mentioned in the letters, dated 29.10.1986 and 13.12.1986, that the job was temporary, the said letters also does not give any impression that the petitioner was selected for permanent post and that it was a job of honorary nature. On the request of the petitioner, his remuneration was enhanced from time to time. The petitioner was only a Visiting Medical Doctor appointed with remuneration and not entitled for any other benefits and the prayer for regularization does not arise at all. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appointment letter, dated 28.10.1986, itself shows that he was appointed as a Visiting Medical Officer and the letter, dated 29.10.1986, would clearly go to show that there was a post in the unit of the respondents and that without conducting any enquiry against the petitioner, calling for the eligible candidates for Visiting Medical Officer is illegal and prays to set aside the impugned notification. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Company contended that there is no sanctioned or cadre post of Medical Officer in existence in the unit of the respondent Company and therefore, there is no pay attached to the post with increments and that he was selected for the purpose of attending to the employee patients for a particular period of four hours and as he is not a regular or temporary employee, the question of conducting any enquiry for termination does not arise. 6. Though the petitioner stated that he was appointed in a sanctioned post, no material is filed to show that there is a sanctioned post of Medical Officer or that a cadre post of Medical Officer is available with the respondent Company. On the other hand, the respondent filed the counter affidavit stating that the appointment for the job of visiting Medical Officer is neither regular or cadre post. The same is not denied or disputed by petitioner. Even as seen from the letter, dated 28.10.1986, it is clear that he was appointed by the company as a Visiting Medical Officer on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/- per month. From the material filed by the petitioner, it would only go to show that he was appointed as a Visiting Medical Officer of the respondent. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that he was a permanent or temporary employee of the respondent Company. It is now well settled that since a contract employee has no right to the post, his services may be terminated in terms of his appointment. Where the appointment of petitioner is contractual and the appointment comes to an end by efflux of time, the petitioner has no right to continue in the post and the fact that even after expiry of the original period, the services are continued on contract basis from time to time would not confer any such right. Without a sanctioned or a cadre post in existence in the organization of the respondent, the question of appointing him either temporarily or permanently with a pay attached to it does not arise. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 7. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 18th April, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.7667 OF 2010 Date:18-04-2011 AMD