Civil Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNAJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 26, 2008 Ravinder Singh and others ............ Petitioners versus The State of Haryana and others ............. Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 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 Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of advertisement dated 20.03.2008 whereby an advertisement has been issued inviting applications for appointment on contract basis on different posts. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner No.1 has been appointed on contract basis on 23.03.2000, whereas petitioner No.2 on 31.08.2004 and petitioners No. 3 to 5 on 18.09.2007. In terms of the conditions of appointment, consolidated salary is payable to the petitioners and they have been engaged for a specific period. Though the petitioners have not referred to any advertisement in respect of appointment of petitioners No.1 and 2 but petitioners No.3 to 5 were appointed in pursuance of advertisement, Annexure P-5, whereby applications were invited for Civil Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2008 [2] appointment on advertised posts on consolidated pay and for a specific period of six months. Petitioners No. 3 to 5 have worked for a period of six months, whereas petitioner No.1 was appointed in 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not refer to any selection process whereby applications were invited from the general public and appointments were made in terms of the Rules of appointment applicable in the department. Similar is the position in respect of respondent No.2. It could not be pointed out that petitioners No.3 to 5 have been appointed against the posts which are available under the rules and in terms of the conditions of recruitment specified in such rules. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court only on the ground that since they were appointed on contract basis at one point of time, they were entitled to continue on such post till such time regular appointments are made. The petitioners have relied upon Division Bench decisions of this Court reported as Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Anil Kumar Singh and others, (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 284; Hitesh Thakur vs. The Chairman, Managing Committee, National Horticulture Board, Gurgaon and others and another, 2006(1) Recent Services Judgements 438; and Manjit Singh and others vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and others, 2007(3) Recent Services Judgements 493. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any merit in the present case. The judgement referred to by the petitioners in Anil Kumar Singh's case (supra) arises out of appointment of teachers. In the case of teachers, Hon'ble Supreme Court and in a number of Judgements Civil Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2008 [3] this Courts has held that the method of appointment of teachers on contract basis is to avoid the payment of wages for the vacation period. The practice of appointment on contract basis so as to avoid the payment of vacation period was deprecated. Similarly, in Manjit Singh's case (supra), the contractual appointment was made for 89 days or till the arrival of a regular appointee, whichever was earlier. In Hitesh Thakur's case (supra), the petitioner was appointed on the post of Technical Assistant who fulfilled the necessary qualification. It appears that the qualifications fulfilled by the petitioner in the aforesaid case are the qualifications prescribed under the Rules. In the present case, neither there is any allegation that the appointments have been made on contract basis so as to avoid payment of wages for certain period or that the appointment of the petitioners have been made on the basis of the qualifications and the posts available under the Rules. Merely because at one stage the appointment of the petitioners has been made on contractual basis, it do not confer any right on the petitioners to continue on the post indefinitely. The petitioners were aware of their contractual appointment and, therefore, they cannot claim any right than what was conferred on them in terms of the appointment letter. In Yidyavardhaka Sangha and another vs. Y.D. Deshpande and others, (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 482, Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the appointment made for a specific period of time comes to an end by efflux of time and persons holding such post have no right to continue on the post and ask for regularisation etc. It was held as under:- “ It is now well settled principle of law that the appointment made on probation / ad hoc basis for a specific period of time comes to an end by efflux of time and the person holding such post can have no right to continue on the post. In the instant Civil Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2008 [4] case, as noticed above, the respective respondents have accepted the appointment including the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment orders and joined the post in question and continued on the said posts for some years. The respondents having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment order and allowed the period for which they were appointed to have been elapsed by efflux of time, they are not now permitted to turn their back and say that their appointments could not be terminated on the basis of their appointment letters nor they could be treated as temporary employees or on contract basis. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents to the said effect has no merit and is, therefore, liable to be rejected. It is also well settled law by several other decisions of this Court that appointment on ad hoc basis / temporary basis comes to an end by efflux of time and persons holding such post have no right to continue on the post and ask for regularisation, etc”. In Accounts Officer (A&I), AP SRTC vs. K.V. Ramana and others, (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, it was found that even if the contract labourers or casual workers or ad hoc employees have worked for a long period they cannot be regularised dehors the rules for selection. It was held as under:- “ In our opinion these appeals have to be allowed. It has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Secy. State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 that absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be granted by the courts. As regards the circular dated 31.03.1998 the same cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution, hence regularisation cannot be granted under the said circular. Even if the contract labourers or casual workers or ad hoc employees have worked for a long period they cannot Civil Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2008 [5] be regularised dehors the rules for selection, as has been held in Umadevi case”. In view of the above, we do not find that the petitioners have any right to continue on the post on which they were appointed on contractual basis at one point of time. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE March 26, 2008 (MOHINDER PAL) ks JUDGE