Civil Writ Petition No. 5687 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 5687 of 1989 Date of Decision: 15.12.2009 Punna Ram etc. ......Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana etc. .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The petitioners have claimed a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the termination order dated 20.3.1989 (Annexure P.3) and for stay of the said termination order. The petitioners have further prayed that the respondents be restrained from appointing any other candidate as conductor and that the petitioners be taken in employment in accordance with Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [ for short `the Act' ]. The petitioners have alleged that they were appointed as Civil Writ Petition No. 5687 of 1989 [2] Conductors after they were sponsored by the employment exchange. In respect of petitioner No.1, it was alleged that he has worked for 320 days; petitioner No. 2 for 321 days; petitioner No. 3 for 70 days and petitioner No. 4 for 283 days. The petitioners assert that they have sought grant of regular pay scale, but instead of grant of regular pay scale, their services were terminated vide order Annexure P.3 on 20.3.1989. It is alleged that such termination is in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and that the respondents in violation of the mandate of Section 25-H of the Act, are appointing the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange. Therefore, the petitioners claim the directions, as mentioned above. In reply, it has been pointed out that the petitioners were appointed as Conductors on adhoc basis for a fixed period against the posts sanctioned upto 17.9.1988, to clear the rush of the passengers in the peak months and that there were no sanctioned posts of conductor in the regular pay scale upto 17.9.1988. Thereafter, the petitioners were adjusted as conductors against the post of daily-wage conductors, which were sanctioned vide order Annexure R.3 dated 16.12.1988. It was pleaded that the petitioners have not completed more than 240 days of their service and are not entitled to the protection of Section 25-H of the Act. No replication has been filed to controvert the averments made in the written statement. It is, thus, apparent that the petitioners were appointed for a fixed term upto 17.9.1988 and, thereafter, on daily Civil Writ Petition No. 5687 of 1989 [3] wage basis. It was an adhoc appointment to meet out the administrative exigencies. No right for reinstatement in service, accrues to the petitioners for having worked on adhoc basis and/or daily wages. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, 2006(4) SCC page 1 has held that the public appointments can be made only after due process of inviting applications and after wide publicity and by considering all eligible candidates. Since the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis for a fixed term and/or for a period of less than 240 days, no right accrues to the petitioners so as to dispute the termination order or to claim a writ of mandamus for reinstatement in service. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition shall not adversely affect the absorption of the petitioners, if any, in terms of order dated 26.2.1990. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 15-12-2009 ds