THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.4155 of 2011 ORDER: On 03.04.2008, entertaining a request from the petitioner, the petitioner came to be appointed to the post of Public Relations Officer pending regular recruitment, which the respondents apprehend may take some time. In the order given to the petitioner on 03.04.2008, they made it clear that he has been appointed purely on ad-hoc basis to complete the project work, which is likely to last for three months. He has been appointed on a consolidated fee of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is obvious that the writ petitioner has been engaged to be associated with the project work, which the respondents contemplated might take three months. The case of the petitioner is that he has been continued ever since as a Public Relations Officer and his services have also come to be appreciated, but, however, on the ground that certain improper information having been entertained by the fourth respondent, the impugned order was passed on 09.02.2011 placing the petitioner under suspension for a period of two weeks. Though the respondents have taken time for filing a counter- affidavit as early as on 22.02.2011, but they have not preferred to do so. When once the writ petitioner himself was appointed on an ad-hoc basis, it presupposes that he has no right to hold the post on a regular basis. It is strange that such ad-hoc arrangements are being continued for indefinitely long periods providing for unnecessary interest to develop in the matters. The writ petitioner could not have been the only person available for being recruited as a Public Relations Officer. If the respondents really felt that his services are not necessary for completing the project work, they should have taken prompt and necessary steps to replace him with a regular candidate as expeditiously as possible. Instead they have continued him for more than two years. It is equally strange that the respondents have chosen to place an ad-hoc employee under suspension and that too for a period of two weeks. The approach of the respondents appears to be very tentative. Question of placing an employee under suspension for a period of two weeks reflects lack of proper application of mind. Normally placing an employee under suspension is resorted to for the purpose of preventing the access to said employee to the records or to the witnesses who might be willing to speak against him during the course of regular enquiry. If he were to be allowed to continue in the office, collection of evidence might be difficult. However, the question of conducting an enquiry against an ad-hoc employee is neither here nor there. Therefore, the question of placing such an employee under suspension would not have arisen in the normal course. Since the respondents have chosen a novel way of trying to convey their displeasure to the petitioner, the first respondent is forthwith directed to review the entire exercise and take a decision as to whether the services of the writ petitioner are required to be continued or not. In the event, the services of the writ petitioner are needed to be continued in the larger public interest of the Organisation, the first respondent would ensure that he will be paid normal fee treating the period from 09.02.2011 as a case of put off duty and on that basis regulate the entire exercise and appropriate decision may be taken within a period of 15 days from today and the said decision be conveyed to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dt. 29.03.2011 Note: CC today b.o. lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.4155 of 2011 Dt. 29.03.2011