1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7093/02 (Smt. Lichama Devi V/s. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Judgment :: 06.07.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Babu Lal Gupta for the petitioner. Mrs. Shruti Dixit, Dy. GA for the State. The petitioner has made the following prayers : - “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased : - (1) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2002, passed by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-7), by which services of the petitioner have been terminated. (2) to direct the respondents to reinstate the humble petitioner in service with all consequential benefits as if no such termination order was ever passed against her. (3) to direct the respondents that after reinstating the petitioner on the post, grant her regular pay scale and regularise her services with all consequential benefits. (4) any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may also be passed with costs.” The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Ward Maid (Class IV employee) on 2 the consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. Thereafter, in pursuance of order dated 16.03.1990, the petitioner was assigned the work of Maternity Nurse (Prasavika). Subsequently, after giving a break in service on 03.09.1990, the petitioner was again taken in service, vide order dated 08.10.1990. Again, vide order dated 29.04.1992, the petitioner's service was broken and after some time she was again re-appointed. Thereafter, the respondents, vide order dated 31.07.2002, terminated the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the termination order dated 31.07.2002, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that although admittedly the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis, but she had been working on the post of Maternity Nurse (Prasavika) ever since 1990. Therefore, her services could not have been terminated without giving an opportunity of hearing to her. Secondly, since she has been working for such a long time, her services should have been regularised, especially when the services of others like her were regularized. Therefore, hostile discrimination has been carried out against her. On the other hand, Mrs. Shruti Dixit, the learned Dy. GA for the State, has contended that the employer is 3 within its power to terminate the services of a person who has been appointed on ad-hoc basis. After all, an ad-hoc employee does not have any lien over his post for by its very nature he holds the office for a limited period. Therefore, the respondents were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner. Secondly, merely because the petitioner was holding the post for a long time, it would not entitle her to plead for regularization. Since her very recruitment was against the rules, she does not have a right for regularization. In order to buttress her contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Secretary, Sate of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Umadevi (3) & ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and Raghavendra Rao & Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC & Ors]. Heard, the learned counsel for the parties, have perused the impugned order and have considered the case laws cited at the Bar. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that an ad- hoc employee does not have and cannot claim the right to continue on the post. For, the appointment is for a limited period. According to the petitioner, she was initially appointed as a Ward Maid on 05.02.1990 on a consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. Subsequently, she was 4 assigned the work of Maternity Nurse (Prasavika). After breaks in her services, she was re-appointed on 08.01.1991 for a period of three months. Therefore, her appointment was only for a limited period and that too without following the procedure for regular selection. Hence, the respondents were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of hearing. Moreover, in the cases of Secretary, Sate of Karnataka (supra) and Raghavendra Rao & Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that an illegally appointed person cannot claim the right of regularisation. In the present case, the petitioner was not appointed after following the due selection process. Her appointment was illegal from the very initial stage. Thus, in the light of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, she cannot claim the right of regularisation. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/