1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7098/02 (Mahesh Kumar 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-5), 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 him regular pay scale and regularise his 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 Sweeper (Class IV employee) on 2 the consolidated salary of Rs.200/- per month. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.934/1994 for regularisation of the services. The Hon'ble Court vide its common order dated 13.09.2005, directed the Medical & Health Department, Government of Rajasthan that the employees who are already working temporarily as Ward Boy and Sweepers in the Medical and Health Department, should be given preference in regular appointments. According to the petitioner, in pursuance of the said order, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jaipur passed an order dated 01.02.1997 in regard to regularisation of the services of the petitioner and for giving him regular appointment as soon as the posts are vacant. 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 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 he had been working on the post of Sweeper ever since 1990. Therefore, his services could not have been terminated without giving an opportunity of hearing to her. Secondly, since he has 3 been working for such a long time, his services should have been regularised, as the services of others like him were regularized. Therefore, hostile discrimination has been carried out against him. On the other hand, Mrs. Shruti Dixit, the learned Dy. GA for the State, has contended that the employer is 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. 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 him to plead for regularization. Since his very recruitment was against the rules, he does not have any right of 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. 4 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, he was initially appointed as a Sweeper on 26.03.1990 on a consolidated salary of Rs.200/- per month. Hence, the respondents were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner without giving him 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 selection process. His appointment was illegal from the very initial stage. Thus, in the light of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he 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/