IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 54 of 2008 With CLMA No. 2177 of 2008 Asha Ram and another .……… Appellants Versus State of U.P. and others ……… Respondents Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellants. Mrs. Been Pandey, learned Standing Counsel (U.P.Govt.) for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. J.C.S. Rawat, J. (Oral) For the reasons stated, the CLMA No. 2177 of 2008 is allowed. The delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the special appeal is being decided today at the admission stage. 3. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2355 (S/S) of 2001. The appellants/writ petitioners have filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge for seeking the following reliefs :- “i) Suitable directions, orders or writs, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.08.2000 (Annexure 14 & 15 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No.3 and the Government Order Dated 17-7-2000 (Annexure 16 to the writ petition). ii) Suitable directions, orders or writs, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the Petitioners as Assistant Accountant and to pay the petitioner regular monthly salary on the said post. iii) Suitable direction, order or writ in addition to and/or in substitution of what has been prayed above as may be found expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv) Award costs of the writ petition, to the petitioner.” 4. In substance, the appellants/writ petitioners have challenged the cancellation order of their appointment on the post of the Assistant Accountant. It is further alleged that the appellants/writ petitioners were working in the Agricultural Department in the respective districts on the post of Assistant Accountant and they were appointed by the Additional Director. The Government after scrutiny of their appointments found that their appointments were not in accordance with the provisions of the Law and the Government directed to cancel their appointments immediately. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that the appointment letter issued by the respondents clearly indicates that the appointments were given to the appellants/writ petitioners on adhoc basis only. The perusal of the termination order specifically indicates that in pursuance of the Government Order, the services of the appellants/writ petitioners have been terminated. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the similarly situated persons are still in service and their services have been regularized. It was further contended that the appellants were appointed on the adhoc basis, hence Rule 5 of the U.P. Agricultural Department Accounts (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 1982 is not applicable in the case of the appellants. Perusal of the appointment order and order of cancellation of appointment clearly reveal that the services of the appellants were terminated as they being adhoc in nature and which was not in accordance with the provisions of the law. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi & others reported in 2006 AIR SCW p/1991 that unless any appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right to the appointee. The constitutional scheme provide that if fresh appointment is to be made by direct recruitment, it should not be made from the backdoor and it should be made through proper competitive examination. It was further held that before issuing the mandamus it must be shown that the statute im0poses a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party that they had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. A mandamus cannot be issued in favour of the adhoc employees, whose services have been terminated, to continue their services since they cannot show that they have an enforceable right to remain in service or the statute imposes a legal duty to continue their services. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appellants had no right to seek mandamus whose services have been terminated by the employer. In this case, the appellants were appointed on adhoc basis and their services have been terminated, as such, the writ petitioners have no right to seek the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. We do not find any fault in the findings of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. 7. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 23.04.2008 23.04.2008 LSR/Shiv