STATE OF U.P. & ANR.versusRAM ADHAR

                         [2008] 6 S.C.R. 358


A                     STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                           ~        ,
                                  v.
                            RAM ADHAR
                  (Civil Appeal No. 5691 of 2002)

                          APRIL 10, 2008
B
          (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

       ·II
                   K. Sharda Devi for the Respondent.                                A
                   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
;> -t·
                   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 F
    ...,..
              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.                          G
                   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.
                   Before parting with this case we would like to mention that        H
   360        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [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.