Open iDraf
D. Kishore v. State Of Maharashtra

D. Kishore
v.
State Of Maharashtra

(Supreme Court Of India)

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16583-84 Of 1996 | 07-10-1996


G.B. Pattanaik, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis de hors the rules as Medical Officer in Class III post on February 28, 1990 for a period of three months and it was extended from time to time. Apprehending termination of his service, he filed Writ Petition No. 2661/90 in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur. The High Court had transferred the matter to the Administrative Tribunal. In T.A. No. 3559/92, the Tribunal by order dated September 15, 1993 directed that the petitioner may be allowed to continue until the duly selected candidates by the Selection Board or Maharashtra Public Service Commission were available and appointment, his continuance in service was only on ad hoc basis without conferment of any right including the requirement of notice before terminating the service; at best, he would be entitled to be considered along with other candidates and as soon as the duly selected candidate is appointed, his service was liable to be terminated even without notice. By proceedings dated January 4, 1994 one Dr. S.S. Solanki, Medical Officer, Class III who was selected by the Public Service Commission was posted by transfer at his request in place of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination in OA No. 400/95 and the Tribunal in the impugned order dated April 12, 1996 dismissed the petition. Thus, these special leave petitions.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since vacancies are existing the appointment of Dr. Solanki by transfer could not be used as means to terminate the service of the petitioner. We fail to appreciate the contention. It is fairly agreed by the learned counsel that the petitioner has no right to the post and as soon as a duly selected candidate is posted in his place, he has to give place to the duly selected candidate. But his contention is that since Dr. Solanki was selected earlier to the order passed by the Tribunal and had been appointed on his transfer, it cannot be used as a means to terminate the service of the petitioner. His contention absolutely has no force. As soon as the duly selected candidate is posted, whether directly by transfer, necessarily the petitioner has to give place to such a candidate. The petitions, therefore, do not merit interference.

3. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

4. SLPs dismissed.

Advocates List

For the Petitioner - Mr. P.N. Gupta, Advocate.

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.B. PATTANAIK

Eq Citation

(1997) SCC (LS) 779

(1997) 3 SCC 209

1996 9 AD (SC) 178

[1996] (SUPPL.) 7 SCR 231

1996 (98) BOMLR 627

1996 (8) SCALE 230

(1998) 3 LLJ 577

1997 (1) SLJ 142

1997 (1) SLR 107

LQ/SC/1996/1654

HeadNote

A. Service Law — Termination of service — Temporary employee — Duly selected candidate posted in place of temporary employee — Temporary employee to give place to duly selected candidate — No right to post — Termination of service of temporary employee by posting duly selected candidate — Held, petitioner had no right to post and as soon as a duly selected candidate was posted in his place he had to give place to duly selected candidate