Ravindra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 30577 of 1995
Ravindra Pal Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : M.D. Singh, Ram Dayal Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
AFR
Judgement Reserved on 21.09.2026
Judgement Delivered on 24.10.2026
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Vaibhav Goswami, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Dayal Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dileep Kumar Kesarwani,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeks quashing
of the order dated 29.09.1995, whereby the services of the petitioner who
was working as ad- hoc/temporary Junior Clerk at Deaf and Dumb Girl
School, Etawah were terminated, relying upon the U.P. Temporary
Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, stating therein
that the services of the petitioner are no more required and after the end of
one month, his services will be deemed to have been terminated.
3. After filing of the instant writ petition, vide order dated 01.11.1995, an
interim order was passed in favor of the petitioner directing the
respondents to make payment of arrears of salary as well as salary month-
by-month as and when it falls due to the petitioner and in said order,
interestingly, it was also observed that instant petition shall be heard
finally and disposed of within six months and the parties are at liberty to

WRIA No. 30577 of 1995
2
make mention for early hearing of the petition and despite the aforesaid
observation, the instant petition could not be decided for last 30 years.
Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner continued in service.
At the time of filing of instant petition, as per the affidavit filed
supporting the writ petition, the age of the petitioner was 28 years. Thus,
as of now, the petitioner would be about 59 years of age.
4. The briefly stated facts of the case are that as per the appointment letter
dated 08.05.1991, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk
temporarily on the pay scale of 950-20-1150-25-1500, temporarily in
Government Deaf and Dumb Girls School, in Etawah. From the date of
the joining, it was made clear in the said appointment letter that his
appointment is temporary, which can be terminated at any time without
prior intimation. The claim of the petitioner is that the aforesaid
appointment was made after following the due procedure for selection by
the Committee appointed for the said purpose. After verification of the
documents, the petitioner had joined on 08.07.1991 on the aforesaid post
of Junior Clerk. Later, vide order dated 29.09.1995, the services of
petitioner were terminated after giving one month's notice under the
provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of
Service) Rules, 1975. Being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed
by the petitioner.
5. Sri M.D. Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submits that since the appointment for the petitioner was against the
permanent post, though it was ad hoc / temporary, it cannot be said to be
temporary service within the meaning of Rule 2 of the U.P. Temporary
Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, which
provides that temporary service means: (i) officiating or substantive
service on a temporary post; or (ii) officiating service on a permanent post
under the U.P. Government. Thus, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submits that since the appointment of the petitioner was on a
permanent post and it was an appointment in the regular nature and not in
the officiating capacity, therefore, the aforesaid rules of 1975 Rule will
not apply in the instant case. Therefore, termination of service of the
petitioner, relying upon the aforesaid Rules after giving one month’s
notice is not sustainable.

WRIA No. 30577 of 1995
3
6. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that
no opportunity whatsoever has ever been given to the petitioner before
passing the impugned termination order, therefore, the said termination
order is in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Thus,
he submits that since termination of the has been done relying upon the
aforesaid Rules is not sustainable and the impugned order is liable to be
quashed.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
of the Apex Court in Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere vs. Union of India : AIR
1989 SC 1431 and submits that at least an opportunity of hearing is
required before terminating the service.
8. Per contra , learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State
submits that the institution in question/school in question was established
in the year 1990 and in the year 1991, to run the institute, ad hoc /
temporary appointments were made for the purpose till the regular
appointments are made in the said institute. In the appointment letter
issued to the petitioner, it was categorically mentioned that his services
are ad hoc / temporary and can be terminated at any point of time without
assigning any reason and without notice. Therefore, the ad hoc
appointments so made are only till regular appointments are made on the
said post after following the proper selection process as per relevant rules.
Till then, the status of such ad hoc appointments would be officiating on
the permanent post. Therefore, the services of the petitioner are fully
covered under the 1975 Rules and vide impugned order dated 29.09.1995
the services of the petitioner have been terminated relying upon the
aforesaid Rules. At no point of time, the services of the petitioner have
ever been confirmed and till the confirmation of service, the services of
an ad hoc / temporary employee remains in the temporary service.
Therefore, there is no illegality in the termination order so passed by the
appointing authority without assigning any reason.
9. The reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on
Article 311 of the Constitution of India is relevant only when some
punitive orders are passed by the appointing authority while dismissing
the services. From the perusal of the impugned termination order, the

WRIA No. 30577 of 1995
4
same cannot be termed as punitive in nature. Therefore, there is no
illegality in the impugned termination order. Accordingly, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State seeks dismissal of the
instant writ petition.
10. Having heard the rival submission so made by the parties, this Court
has carefully gone through the records of the case. The facts of the case
are briefly stated as has already been noted hereinabove. It is undisputed
in the instant case that the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner
on 08.05.1991, in which it was categorically mentioned that the
petitioner's appointment is ad hoc/ temporary, which can be terminated
without any prior intimation. There is no order of confirmation of the
petitioner in the said services till date or till the impugned order was
passed. Therefore, the services of the petitioner remained ad hoc /
temporary till the impugned termination order was passed.
11. Rule 2 of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of
Service) Rules, 1975 reads as under:
"Rule 2. Definition.-
In these rules "temporary service" means officiating or
substantive service on a temporary post, or officiating service on
a permanent post under the Uttar Pradesh Government."
12. In the aforesaid Rule, it is categorically provided that temporary
service means: (i) the officiating or substantive service on a temporary
post; or (ii) the officiating service on a permanent post. There is no
dispute in the instant case, that post of 'Junior Clerk' in which the
petitioner was appointed was a permanent post. Thus, it is to be
determined whether the services of the petitioner were in the nature of
officiating service or the permanent service.
13. From the appointment letter itself it is apparent that his services were
ad hoc / temporary. It is relevant to take note of the fact that the institute
i.e., the Government Deaf and Dumb Girls School, Etawah, was
established in the year 1990 and just to start this institute, some temporary
/ ad hoc appointments were made till the regular appointments were made

WRIA No. 30577 of 1995
5
on the said posts. Therefore, ad hoc appointments so made cannot be
termed as the permanent appointment by any stretch of imagination. The
ad hoc appointment remains to be a temporary arrangement till the regular
appointments are made. Therefore, such appointments can very well be
covered within the definition of officiating service on a permanent post.
Thus, the same will remain temporary service and cannot be held to be a
substantive service by any stretch of imagination. Thus, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the appointment of the petitioner continued to be
officiating service on a permanent post from the date of his appointment
till the date of his termination on 29.09.1995.
14. In Ram Sudhar Prasad vs. State of UP and others :
2012:AHC:92611 , relying upon Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh State
Government Servants Confirmation Rules, 1991, the Court has held that
till the confirmation orders are passed, the nature of appointment of an ad
hoc / temporary appointee remains to be that of a temporary appointment.
Hence, the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of
Service) Rules, 1975 could be fully applicable on such appointments and
the services would be terminated relying upon the provisions of 1975
Rules.
15. In judgement and order dated 01.09.2004 passed in Siya Ram vs.
State of U.P. and Other (Civil Misc. Writ Petition (now Writ A) No.
34983 of 2911) , the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as
under:
"(9). A temporary employee has no right to hold the post and
his service is liable to be terminated without assigning any
reason either under the terms of the contract providing for
such termination or under the relevant statutory rules
regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants.
Similarly, in Triveni Shanker Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & ors.,
AIR 1992 SC 496; Commissioner of Food and Supply Vs.
Prakash Chandra Saxena, 1994(5) SCC 177; Ram Chandra
Tripathi Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and others, 1994(2)
JT 84; Madhya Pradesh Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs.
Devendra Kumar Jain & anr., 1995(1) SCC 638; and Kaushal

WRIA No. 30577 of 1995
6
Kishore Shukla (supra), the Supreme Court has categorically
held that incumbent to a post who has been given
appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice,
has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any
opportunity of hearing before his service is dispensed with as
his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal
right. "
16. Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh State Government Servants Confirmation
Rules, 1991 reads as under:
"Rule - 4. Confirmation where necessary.
(1) Confirmation of a Government servant shall be made only
on the post on which he is substantively appointed
(i) through direct recruitment or,
(ii) by promotion, if direct recruitment is one of the
sources of recruitment or, (iii) by promotion if the
post belongs to a different Service.
(2) Such confirmation shall be made --
(i) against a post, whether permanent or temporary,
on which any other person does not hold a lien;
(ii) subject to the fulfilment of the conditions of
confirmation laid down in the relevant service rules,
or executive instructions issued by Government, as
the case may be ;
(iii) formal order shall be necessary to be issued by
the appointing authority with regard to
confirmation.
Explanation.- Notwithstanding the fact that a Government
servant is confirmed anywhere else, if he is directly recruited
on any post, or is promoted to a post, where direct recruitment
is one of the sources of recruitment, he will have to be
confirmed thereon."

WRIA No. 30577 of 1995
7
17. Thus, for all the practical purposes, since no confirmation order was
passed in the instant case till the impugned termination order was passed,
therefore, the services of the petitioner continued to be a temporary
service. In such view of the matter, this Court do not find any illegality in
the impugned termination order dated 29.09.1995. Otherwise also, from
the perusal of the impugned termination order, it is apparent that the said
order cannot be termed as a punitive order by any stretch of imagination
and the said order is a termination simpliciter in terms of 1975 Rules.
Therefore, the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India
would not apply in the instant case and no opportunity of hearing
whatsoever is required to be given while passing the said order. In such
view of the matter, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned
termination order dated 29.09.1995.
18. Accordingly, the instant writ petition lacks merit and accordingly
dismissed . The petitioner shall be deemed to have been terminated w.e.f.
29.09.1995. However, looking at the fact that the petitioner herein has
continued in service pursuant to the interim orders so passed in the instant
petition on 01.11.1995. In such with the matter, though the termination
has been upheld from 29.09.1995, the respondents are restrained from
recovering any amount which was paid to the petitioner pursuant to the
interim order.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
October 24, 2026
Shubham Arya
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad