VIDYA VARDHAKA SANGHA AND ANR.versusY.D. DESHPANDE AND ORS.

A
                     VIDYA VARDHAKA SANGHA AND ANR.

                            Y.D. DESHPANDE AND ORS.


B                              SEPTEMBER 21, 2006

            [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE. JJ.]


          Service Law-Appointment-On temporaty!contract basis for specific
C period-Effect-Held: Appointment comes to an end by efjlux of time-Such
    person has no right to continue on the post, and as such cannot challenge
    its termination.

          The questions which arose for consideration in these appeals was
    whether appointees on temporary basis/contract basis for specific period had
D   the right to continue to the post after lapse of the period.

          Allowing the appeals, the Court

          HELD: The appointment made on probation/ad hoc basis/temporary
    basis for a specific period of time comes to an end by efflux of time and the
E   person holding such post can have no right tu continue on the post and ask
    for regularisation etc. In the instant appeals, the respondents having accepted
    the appointment including the terms and conditions stipulated in the
    appointment orders, joined the posts in question, and continued on the said
    post for some years and allowed the period for which they were appointed to
F   have been elapsed by efflux of time, thus 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 say that they could not be treated as
    temporary employee or employee on contract basis. (472-A-DI

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4224 of2006.
G
        From the Final Common Judgment dated 15.6.2005 of the High Court of
    Kamataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 2807 of 2002.

                                        WITH

         C.A. No. 4225 of2006.
H                                        470
           VIDYAVARDHAKASANGHAv. Y.D.DESHPANDE[LAKSHMANAN, J.]          471

     S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar, D.P. Chaturvedi and Mayuri Kacker for the      A
Appellants.

      K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                              B
      DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted.

      Heard Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants and Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents.

       Civil Appeal No.4224/2006 arising out of SLP(C) No.16412 of 2005 and
                                                                              c
 Civil Appeal No.4225/2006 arising out of SLP(C) No. 16418/2005 were filed
 against the final common judgment dt.15.6.2005 of the Division Bench of the
 High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 2807/2002 and
2808/2002. We have also perused the judgment in these appeals and also the
appointment order and other relevant records. The appointment order D
appointing the respective respondents herein clearly shows that the
respondents were appointed in the prescribed scale on temporary basis for
the academic year ending on 31st Iv.arch, 1993 and subject to the approval
by the Education Department. The appointment order funher states that the
services of the temporary employees may be terminated by the management E
at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any prior notice.
This appointment order was issued to Y.D. Deshpande (respondent No.I in
SLP(C) No.16412/2005). Another appointment order was issued by the
management pursuant to the Resolution of the management in its meeting
dt.11.08.1991. The respondent No. I in SLP(C) No.16418/2005 (S.K. Joshi) was
appointed 'i\} Assistant Teacher in the school in question on consolidated F
salary of Rs.400/- per month and on contract basis. The appointment order
also further states that the appointment was upto the end of academic year
I0.4.1992. It is not in dispute that when the approval of the Government was
sought the Government did not approve the appointment for the additional
post. It is also not in dispute that the appellants' institution is run on the G
basis of grant-in-aid by the Government. The services of the respondents
were terminated in the year 200 I and the respondents without availing the
alternative remedy available under the law straightway filed the Writ Petitions
in the High Court which were allowed by the learned Single Judge and also
on appeal by the management the same was affirmed by the Division Bench
of the High Court.                                                              H
    472                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 6 S.CR.

A        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 case as noticed above, the respective respondents
  hav~ accepted the appointment including the terms and conditions stipulated
B in the appointment orders and joined the posts in question and continued on
  the said post 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 tenninated on the basis of their appointment letters nor they could be
C treated as temporary employee 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.
D
         For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Appeals stand allowed and the
    judgments p;issed by the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 280712002 and 28081
    2002 and in Writ Petitions are set aside. No costs.

    N.J.                                                         Appeals allowed.