9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court that she had all the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Medical Officer in the U.P. State Services. She was appointed vide order dated 1.8.1997 under the Anshkalik (temporary) Scheme of the State Government and was posted at a Government Female Hospital in Bulandshahar district. 4. It is alleged in her writ petition that to avoid the claim of regular service of the writ Petitioner the State Government acted against the spirit of law laid down by this Court in Rattanlal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 478 and in Rabinarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 1286 and other decisions given from time to time by this Court, declaring illegal the policy of making ad hoc appointment havin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t herein did not work after 16.4.1991 in the State service as her services came to an end on that date. She made several representations to the government authorities but to no avail. It is alleged that the State government arbitrarily terminated the service of the Respondent on 16.4.1991. It is alleged that she was entitled to regularization in service and parity in wages as regular employees. 6. It is alleged that an SLP(C) No. 25503 of 1995 was filed before this Court against the Allahabad High Court judgment and order dated 11.2.1991 passed in writ petition No. 4886 of 1990, but the same was dismissed on 19.2.1996. It is also alleged that after the dismissal of the said SLP the writ Petitioner(s) should have been regularized in servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent was only a temporary employee and had not worked after 16.4.1991. 12. It has been held in a recent decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal 2011(2) SCC 429 following the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot regularize an employee. Merely because some others had been regularized does not give any right to the Respondent. An illegality cannot be perpetuated. 13. Also, it is well-settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691. The Respondent's service was not terminated as a measure of punishment. Hence no op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
