Case Brief: State of U.P. and Ors. v Rekha Rani

FACTS:
The petitioner had a degree of B.A.M.S.(Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery). She filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that she had all the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Medical Officer in the U.P. State Services.  She was appointed under  the  Anshkalik  (temporary) Scheme  of  the State Government and was posted at a Government Female Hospital in Bulandshahar district.
The writ petitioner (respondent in the present appeal) has alleged that she is entitled to the benefit of the High Court decision, although she had not filed any individual writ petition.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:
The petitioner alleged in her writ petition that to avoid her claim of regular service the State Government acted against the spirit of law laid down in Rattanlal and others v State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 478 and in  Rabinarayan Mohapatra v State of Orissa and others, AIR 1991 SC 1286, wherein it was declared that the policy of making ad hoc appointment having time bound period and thereafter terminating the services of the appointee and   after a short interval giving   re-appointment as illegal.
JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT:
The High Court held that   there   was   violation   of   Articles   14   and   16   of   the   Constitution   of India, and that the claim of the petitioner for regularization shall be considered within six months from the date of production of copy of the said judgment before the respondent (the State Government).
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT:
It was held by the Court that a   regular   appointment   can   only   be   made   after   selection   by   the U.P. Public Service Commission.  Also, it was observed, the respondent was only a temporary employee. It was added by the Court that 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 and thus merely because some others had been regularized does not give any right to the respondent.
Moreover, 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   direction   for   respondent’s reinstatement was, therefore, not sustainable   as  she  was   only  a  temporary  employee and  hence  had  no right to the post.
The  appeal was thus   allowed setting the impugned   judgment   and  order   of  the   High   Court aside.