Temporary Employees Cannot Claim Continuation as a Matter of Right

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that temporary employees cannot claim continuation in service as a matter of right after their fixed tenure expires, even if their appointments have been extended repeatedly. The Court made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by 12 temporary employees of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, who challenged the discontinuation of their services without prior notice or formal termination orders.

Justice Balaji Medamalli, sitting as a Single Judge, observed that the employees had been appointed only for fixed periods and that their temporary engagements did not give them an enforceable legal right to continue beyond the tenure mentioned in their appointment orders. The Court said that when a fixed period of engagement expires, the service comes to an end automatically with the passage of time. Such expiry cannot be treated as termination requiring compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Court further observed that temporary or daily-wage employees do not acquire a legal right to regular appointment or continued service merely because they have worked for a considerable period. Repeated extensions of temporary appointments also do not create such a right when the original terms of engagement clearly limit the period of service. In the absence of a statutory right or contractual entitlement, employees cannot demand continuation beyond their specified tenure.

The petitioners had initially been appointed by Sri Venkateswara University on a daily-wage basis for periods of 89 days. Their engagements were extended from time to time, with a break of one working day between successive terms. They claimed that they had performed their technical and administrative duties satisfactorily and possessed the necessary qualifications and competence for their respective positions.

However, the Registrar later orally instructed them not to report for duty. When the employees made enquiries, they learnt that the Registrar had received instructions from the Vice-Chancellor not to extend the engagements of daily-wage employees until further orders. As a result, the petitioners were discontinued from service.

Challenging the university’s decision, the 12 employees approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This provision empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of legal rights. The petitioners argued that their services had been discontinued without prior notice, a formal termination order or an opportunity to be heard. They claimed that the action violated the principles of natural justice and their fundamental rights.

The employees also relied on the principle that an ad hoc employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc employee and should be replaced only by a regularly selected candidate appointed through the prescribed recruitment process. They argued that their repeated extensions and continued work supported their claim for protection against discontinuation.

The university opposed the petition and disputed the claim that the employees had been in continuous service. It submitted that each engagement was for a fresh fixed period of 89 days, followed by a break of one working day before the next engagement. According to the university, the appointments had been made outside the regular recruitment process, and the available workload was insufficient to justify permanent engagement. The university therefore decided not to grant further extensions.

The university also argued that the employees’ engagements automatically ended when the specified periods expired. Since the appointments were temporary and subject to fixed tenure, it maintained that separate termination orders were not required.

After examining the submissions, the Court considered the conditions mentioned in the employees’ appointment letters. It noted that the letters clearly stated that the engagements were temporary, that the period of service would not be counted as university service and that the appointments could be discontinued at any time without prior notice.

In view of these conditions, the Court held that the employees could not claim continuation beyond their fixed tenure simply because their engagements had been extended several times. The Court also found that the petitioners had not produced any material showing that they were being replaced by another group of temporary employees. It therefore held that the principle against replacing one ad hoc employee with another did not apply to the facts of the case.

Finding no legal right that justified interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court ordered that there would be no order as to costs, vacated any interim orders granted earlier and closed all pending miscellaneous petitions.

• Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)

Also Check This

• 🧮 Calculate Loan EMI
• 📈 Check Today's Share Price and MCap of All Banks
• 🪙 Check Gold and Silver Rate Today
• 📅 Check Bank Holidays