1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1337/2004. : : Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 19.8.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Kailash Chandra Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.Vishnu Kant Sharma for Mr.A.K.Sharma for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed to challenge the judgment of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) dated 1.11.2003. The writ-petitioner has challenged before the Tribunal order of his removal dated 1.5.1992. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was appointed on consolidated salary for a fixed period initially from 5.7.1990 to 16.5.991 and thereafter from 30.7.1991 to 21.5.1992 and his appointment came to an end vide order dated 21.5.1992. The petitioner's appointment was made against non- availability of post and without any advertisement informing 2 all eligible candidates about availability of post. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Bhattarak Yashkriti Senior Higher Secondary School, Pratapgarh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : WLC 2002 (4) 571. Mr.K.C.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal utterly failed to appreciate that immediately after the petitioner was removed, another ad hoc employee was appointed. It was argued that the respondents deliberately did not appoint the petitioner on regular basis though the vacancy was available and this was only because they wanted to exploit his situation. The availability of vacancy is proved from the facts that the respondents themselves subsequently advertised the post though on temporary basis vide Annex.5 requiring the candidates to make applications upto 24.6.1992. The learned counsel submitted that now it is well settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by an ad hoc employee, therefore, the action of respondents are arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr.Vishnu Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made for fixed period on 3 consolidated salary and the total period hardly came about one and half year. His appointment was for a time period fixed and it came to an end. Learned counsel submitted that prior making appointment the advertisement was not issued and the respondents, therefore, in June 1992 advertised the post. Learned counsel cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Vidhyavardhaka Sangha & Anr. Vs. Y.D.Deshpande & Others : 2006 (12) SCC Page 482 to argue that in the case of appointment of this nature, which comes to an end, employee cannot claim regularization. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments and carefully perused the impugned judgment and other material available on record. The fact which is not in dispute is that the appointment of the petitioner was made initially for the period from 5.7.1990 to 16.5.991 and thereafter from 30.7.1991 to 21.5.1992. The petitioner was not appointed pursuant to any advertisement inviting application from eligible candidates, he accepted the appointment knowing fully about the condition that it was on consolidated salary and for a time specific. The respondents themselves have subsequently issued the advertisement. The Supreme Court in Vidhyavardhaka Sangha (supra) while dealing with the 4 case of similar appointment in an added institution for a particular time, held that appointment was terminable at any time without assigning any reason because the appointee having accepted the condition in terms of the appointment, therefore, the appointee was not entitled to claim the relief of continuity and regularization. In any case, the appointment of the petitioner came to an end on 30.9.1992 and at this stage when 16 years have gone by, since then the respondents even otherwise, cannot be asked to take the petitioner back in service, because appointment of the petitioner was not made by any acceptable mode of recruitment and the mandamus to restore back such an appointee cannot be issued. In the result, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.38.