Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the State of U.P. against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court that allowed the respondent, an ad hoc Stenographer, to continue in service until a regularly selected candidate joined. The respondent was initially appointed for three months, with extensions granted, but failed the requisite test. The Single Judge's order permitting continued service was upheld by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court stayed these orders, noting that an ad hoc appointee has no right to continue in service, particularly after failing a test. The court referenced the case of State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore to support the position that temporary employees do not have a right to the post. The judgment underscored the importance of merit in appointments for positions requiring special skills, such as stenographers, and warned against appointments based on recommendations rather than qualifications. The appeal was allowed, and the previous orders were set aside, emphasizing the need for careful selection based on merit to avoid incompetence in critical roles.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Temporary Employment - Right to Continue - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - An ad hoc appointee has no inherent right to continue in service after failing a test, especially when appointed temporarily. The court emphasized that public interest dictates that such appointments should not be extended without merit-based selection. Held that the orders of the High Court were set aside (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an ad hoc appointee has a right to continue in service until a regular selection is made.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court, and emphasized that an ad hoc appointee has no right to continue in service after failing a test.
Law Points
- Temporary appointment
- Right to continue
- Merit-based selection
- Public interest
- Ad hoc employment
