Dr. Geeta v. State Of U.P And Others

M. Katju, J.:— This writ petition has been filed for quashing paragraph 2 of the G.O Dated 5.8.1993 Annexure-1 to the writ petition in so far as it states that the demonstrators will be appointed every year in the State Medical Colleges, and on the completion of one year service the service of demonstrators, will automatically come to an end.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition it is alleged that the applications were invited for appointment as demonstrator in Bio-chemistry in G.S.V.M Medical College, Kanpur vide advertisement dated 25.8.1999 vide Annexure II to the writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as demonstrator in Bio-chemistry after his selection and given appointment letter dated 19.11.1999 vide Annexure III to the writ petition. In pursuance of the appointment letter the petitioner joined the post of the demonstrator. The petitioner's term was extended up to 9.11.2000 True copy of the extension order is Annexure IV to the writ petition.

4. The petitioner has stated that as yet no regular selection has been held for the post held by the petitioner and she is working to the satisfaction of the authorities which is proved by the recommendation made in her favour vide Annexure V to the writ petition.

5. The petitioner has alleged that she should have been continued in service till regular selection is made.

6. A perusal of the G.O dated 5.8.1983 Annexure I to the writ petition shows that it is mentioned in paragraph 2 that a selection will be held every year for the post of demonstrator in State Medical Colleges and the selection will be on the basis of the marks in the M.B.B.S and the interview. The term of the appointment will be for one year which will automatically come an end after one year.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 3 and 4. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the post of demonstrator has been made only in those departments of the State Medical Colleges in U.P where there is no study for the Post Graduate Courses. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the purpose for creating the aforesaid post of demonstrator is to train the students for higher practical experience in the concerned department where the same is not available through the Post Graduate Degree Courses. In the G.O dated 5.8.1993 the tenure of demonstrator has been fixed for one year only. Hence the petitioners appointment was only till February 2000 but it was extended to 8.9.2000 although it was not extendable. The petitioner's appointment was purely temporary and on tenure basis and hence she has no right to continue.

8. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit reference has been made to the G.O dated 6.9.1994 in which it is reiterated that the tenure of the post of demonstrator is only one year and the service of the appointee will automatically terminated after one year. This is a policy decision of the Government and the Courts should be reluctant to intervene with policy decisions unless they are clearly unconstitutional or illegal. We find no illegality in the impugned G.O The term of the appointment for post of demonstrator is only one year and it is not for this Court to extend the term.

9. The petitioner's appoinment was purely temporary and on a tenure post and hence she has no right to continue after one year vide Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P . 2002 93 FLR 894 Alld...

10. In our opinion, there is no such legal rule that a temporary or ad-hoc appointee is entitled continue till a regular selection rather the law is just the contrary, namely, that a temporary employee has no right to the post. This is also the view taken by this Court in Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari's case (supra).

11. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly. The interim order if any is vacated.

Petition Dismissed.