STATE OF U.P. & ANR. v. RAM ADHAR

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: H. K. Sema
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2008-04-10
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of UP & Anr.

Respondents

Ram Adhar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Fuzail Khan
• Sehdev Singh
• Anil Kumar Jha
• Ravi Prakash Mehrotra

Counsels for Respondents

• H Sharda Devi

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ram Adhar, who was appointed on an ad hoc basis as a stenographer in the Uttar Pradesh government, had his term extended beyond the initial three months. He appeared in a selection test but failed. He filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking to continue in service until a regularly selected stenographer joined. The Single Judge granted him a limited relief to continue till a regular appointee joined, and the Division Bench affirmed it. This Court stayed both orders on 15 October 2001, and Ram Adhar ceased to be in service under the interim order. The Court notes that ad hoc appointments to posts requiring special skills must not become a backdoor route to regular employment. It reiterates the principle that there is no general right to continue for temporary appointees, citing State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore (1991) 1 SCC 691, which holds that temporary employees have no right to the post. The judgment emphasizes merit as the sole criterion for appointing on posts with special skills like stenography, warning against reliance on unofficial recommendations that may lead to incompetent personnel and disrupt judicial functioning. Accordingly, the Court sets aside the orders of the High Court allowing continuation and allows the State's appeal, holding that the ad hoc appointment has no continuing right. It cautions that an incompetent stenographer can jeopardize record accuracy and judicial efficiency, underscoring merit-based selection to protect public interest. The appeal is allowed, and no costs are awarded.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Temporary employee has no right to the post.
Merit should be the sole criterion for posts requiring special skills; disregard unwarranted recommendations to avoid incompetence and disruption of judicial functioning.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellants contended that ad hoc appointment beyond the initial period is unlawful and confers no vested right. The ad hoc post should not be continued; the selection process must be merit-based; reliance on State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore is appropriate, as temporary employees have no right to continue and a stenographer post requires special skills that must be filled on merit, disregarding unwarranted recommendations that could compromise judicial functioning. The Court should set aside the orders allowing Ram Adhar to continue and proceed with a regular selection to preserve public interest and the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondent contended that the ad hoc appointment was valid for the initial three months, with extensions necessary for uninterrupted court functioning; the stays and prior orders permitted Ram Adhar to continue pending a regular appointment; continuity in the stenographer post is essential for proper functioning of the court; while merit remains important, ad hoc measures are legitimate stop-gap arrangements to avoid disruption in judicial work.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore	(1991) 1 SCC 691	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that temporary/ad hoc appointments confer no indefeasible right to continue in the post; the decision emphasizes absence of a right to continue and supports the government’s view.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 358 ~ _.._ ' A STATE OF U.P. & ANR. _v._ B RAM ADHAR (Civil Appeal No. 5691 of 2002) APRIL 10, 2008 **(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.)** _Service Law :_ _Ad··hoc appointment of stenographer- For three months_ c - _Continuing after stipulated period_ - _Incumbent failed in test_ - _Orders by High Court in his writ petition to allow him to_ - _continue till regular appointment Held: Ad/hoc appointee_ - _has no right to the post Orders of High Court set aside._ _State of UP v. Kaushal Kishore,_ **(1991) 1 SCC 691-** D **relied on.** _Service Law :_ )"J _Appointment to posts requiring special skills -Held: For appointment on such posts, the only criterion should be merit_ E _disregarding any recommendation made by any one_ - _If an incompetent stenographer is appointed for the Court, the result will be that correct orders passed by Judge will not be recorded and this will create many problems_ - _Much of the time of the Judge will be spent on making corrections_ - _Therefore, great_ F _[care must be taken by selection committee ][in ][selecting ] persons on such posts._ CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5691 of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.2001 of the High G Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) Luckr,ow in S.A. No. 185/2001. Fuzail Khan, Sehdev Singh, Anil Kumar Jha and Ravi Prakash Mehrotra for the Appellants. H 358 STATE OF UP. & ANR. _v._ RAM ADHAR 359 A ;> _-t·_ ... ...,., K. Sharda Devi for the Respondent. The order of the Court was delivered This appeal filed by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.08.2001 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. :B Heard the parties. The respondent herein was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Stenographer for a period of three months. The time was· extended twice and ultimately, the respondent also c appeared in the test but failed. The respondent preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The same was disposed by the learned Single Judge allowing the respondent to continue till the regularly selected Stenographer joins the post. The same was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High D Court . While issuing notice on 15.10.2001 this Court stayed both the orders of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge. In view of the interim order, the respondent is no more in service today. Even otherwise an ad hoc appointee appointed for a E period of three months as Stenographer, whose term is further extended, should not be allowed to continue in the public interest when he failed in the test. ...,.. _'>(_ It may be mentioned that there is no principle of law that a person appointed in a temporary capacity has a right to continue till a regular selection Rather, the legal position is just the reverse, that is, that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore, (1991) 1 SCC 691. Hence, he has no right to continue even for a day as of right, far from having a right to continue till a regular appointment. On this sole ground we set aside both the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. This appeal is allowed. No costs. F G Before parting with this case we would like to mention that H SUPREME COURT REPORTS 360 [2008] 6 S.C.R. A very often selection and appointments are made on posts requiring special skills like that of a stenographer. On such posts the only criterion should be merit. However, very often such appointments are not made on merit but on some recommendations, and such appointees are very ofter:i B incompetent. If an incompetent stenographer is appointed for the Court the result will be that the correct order passed by the Judge will not be recorded, and this will create many problems. Much of the time of the Judge will be spent on making corrections. Hence C great care must be taken by the selection committee for selecting persons to be appointed on posts requiring special skills like that of a stenographer purely on merit disregarding any recommendation made by anyone, howsoever high. D R.P. Appeal allowed.