Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the termination of a temporary ad hoc Medical Officer appointed de hors rules in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner, Dr. Kishore, was appointed as Medical Officer in Class III post on February 28, 1990 for a period of three months on temporary basis, and the appointment was extended from time to time. Apprehending termination, he filed Writ Petition No.2661/90 in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, which was transferred to the Administrative Tribunal as T.A. No.3559/92. By order dated September 15, 1993, the Tribunal directed that the petitioner may be allowed to continue until duly selected candidates by the Selection Board or Maharashtra Public Service Commission were available and appointed. The Tribunal clarified that his continuance was only on ad hoc basis without conferment of any right, including the requirement of notice before terminating service, and as soon as a duly selected candidate was appointed, his service was liable to be terminated even without notice. Subsequently, by proceedings dated January 4, 1994, Dr. S.S. Solanki, a Medical Officer Class III selected by the Public Service Commission, was posted by transfer at his request in place of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the termination in OA No.400/95, which the Tribunal dismissed by impugned order dated April 12, 1996. The petitioner then filed special leave petitions before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that since vacancies existed, the appointment of Dr. Solanki by transfer could not be used as a means to terminate his service. The counsel fairly agreed that the petitioner had no right to the post and that as soon as a duly selected candidate was posted in his place, he had to give place. However, the counsel argued that since Dr. Solanki was selected earlier to the order passed by the Tribunal and had been appointed on transfer, it could not be used as a means to terminate the petitioner's service. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, observing that it absolutely had no force. The Court held that as soon as a duly selected candidate is posted, whether directly or by transfer, the petitioner necessarily had to give place to such candidate. Consequently, the special leave petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Ad hoc Appointment and Termination - Rights of Temporary Appointee - Not mentioned - The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis de hors rules as Medical Officer in Class III post; the Tribunal had directed continuation only until duly selected candidates were available and appointed, with no right to notice before termination. When a duly selected Medical Officer was posted by transfer in his place, the petitioner challenged termination. The Supreme Court held that as soon as a duly selected candidate is posted, whether directly or by transfer, the ad hoc appointee must give place to such candidate and the special leave petitions were dismissed. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a temporary ad hoc appointee de hors rules can challenge termination when a duly selected candidate is posted by transfer in his place.
Final Decision
Special leave petitions dismissed. The Supreme Court held that as soon as a duly selected candidate is posted, whether directly or by transfer, the petitioner has to give place; no merit in contention.
Law Points
- Temporary ad hoc appointment de hors rules confers no right to post
- duly selected candidate's posting terminates ad hoc service
- transfer of selected candidate can displace ad hoc appointee
- no requirement of notice before termination for ad hoc appointee when order of continuation stipulates no such right
