Delhi High Court
India Tourism Development Corpn. ... vs Poonam Rai on 7 December, 2005
Author: M Katju
Bench: M Katju, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of learned single Judge dated 9.5.2002, Annexure A to the appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating unless where necessary.
4. The respondent (writ petitioner) was appointed on the post of Cashier-cum-Sales Assistant on contract basis in the service of the appellant corporation by order dated 14.1.1994 up to 31.5.1996. Clause 3 of the appointment order states:
On the expiry of the period of contract, your services shall automatically stand terminated and you shall be deemed to have been relieved.
5. Clause 6 of the appointment order states:
During the period of contract, your services are liable to be terminated at any time without any notice from either side and without assigning any reason thereof.
6. It is alleged in para 10 of the writ petition that the petitioner discharged her duties without any complaint from any one and she maintained absolute integrity and efficiency and was obedient, disciplined and diligent. However, to her surprise she was handed over a letter dated 26.4.1995 by the Deputy General Manager of the corporation intimating her that her services stood terminated with immediate effect under clause 6 of the appointment letter dated 14.1.1994. True copy of the termination order is Annexure P2 to the writ petition.
7. It is alleged in para 12 of the writ petition that the said termination order is illegal as no reasons have been given in the same, and no show cause notice was given.
8. It is alleged in para 13 of the petition that petitioner filed an appeal dated 21.8.1995 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation but the same remained pending for a long time. She then also made a representation to the Vice President which is undated. However, no heed was made to the same. Petitioner also wrote a letter dated 13.10.2000 to the Chairman & Managing Director of the Corporation requesting that her case be considered compassionately. However, the said appeal was rejected by letter dated 3.1.2001, Annexure P5 to the writ petition.
9. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition which was allowed and hence this appeal.
10. It is well settled that a temporary appointee has no right to the post vide State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla . An appointment on contract basis is nothing but a temporary appointment. Hence the writ petitioner had no right to the post and there was no need to give her any opportunity of hearing before terminating her service nor was it necessary to assign reasons.
11. From the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition it appears that the order dated 3.1.2001 was passed on the representation of the petitioner dated 13.10.2000 which was made by the writ petitioner to the corporation on compassionate grounds. The writ petition was thereafter filed on 11.7.2001. In our opinion, the same is highly belated as her service was terminated on 26.4.1995.
12. In para 4 of the counter affidavit it is stated that admittedly the appointment was a fixed term temporary appointment and clause 6 of the appointment letter clearly stated that the appointment could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. Hence there is no illegality in the termination order.
13. In para 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the performance of the writ petitioner was not found satisfactory and hence her service was terminated in pursuance of clause 6 of the appointment letter. It is further alleged that petitioner's services was not terminated as a penalty.
14. In para 10 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner's performance was found to be unsatisfactory. The performance was reviewed by the competent authority which decided to terminate her service.
15. In para 13 it is denied that petitioner made any appeal to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Corporation. She only made a representation dated 13.10.2000 which was rejected on 3.1.2001. She had made a representation to the Member of Parliament and not to the Corporation. Even a copy of the alleged appeal preferred by the writ petitioner has not been annexed.
16. In para 14 of the counter affidavit it is again stated that no appeal was addressed by the petitioner, and hence there was no occasion for disposal of the same. The alleged appeal whose copy is at pages 22-23 bore no date and it is also unreceipted.
17. In our opinion this appeal deserves to be allowed. As already stated above, the respondent (petitioner) was only a temporary appointee on a contract basis and had no right to the post. Hence it was not necessary to give her a show cause notice or any reasons for terminating her service but the same could be done under clause 6 of the appointment letter. We do not agree with the learned single Judge who held that before terminating her service the rules of natural justice had to be complied with.
18. In Ram Nayan Shukla v. District Basic Education Officer and Ors. 1999 SCC (L&S) 631, the Supreme Court held that when a fixed term appointment is made the appointee has no right to continue in service beyond that term. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Misra v. UP State Handloom Corporation Ltd. and Anr. and also in Director, Institute of Management Development, UP v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava 1992 (5) SLR 86.
19. In Kunwar Arun Kumar v. UP Hill Electronics Corporation and Ors. the Supreme Court held that termination of service of a probationer for unsatisfactory performance is not stigmatic, and hence the termination is valid. In K V Krishnamani v. Lalit Kala Academy 1996 (5) Scale 139 the Supreme Court held that where the service of a probationer was not found to be satisfactory the termination was valid.
20. In Radhey Shyam Gupta v. UP State Handloom Corporation Ltd. and Anr. it was held that termination of service of a probationer on the basis of adverse entries or on the basis of assessment of his work is not punitive. Even if a preliminary enquiry is held before the termination that will not make the order stigmatic. The same view was taken in Krishnadevaraya Education Trust and Anr. v. L A Balakrishna .
21. Moreover in this case the writ petition suffered from laches as the petitioner's service was terminated in 1995 and she filed a writ petition in 2001. In view of the averments in the counter affidavit to the writ petition, we are not satisfied that she filed any appeal in the year 1995. At any event the petition is highly belated and is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches apart from on merits.
22. As a result of this appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
