http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5691 of 2002

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. & ANR

RESPONDENT: RAM AHDAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2008

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5691 OF 2002

       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.         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 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 Court.  

                       : 2 :         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 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.         Before parting with this case we would like to mention that 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 often incompetent.  

                       : 3 :         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 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.