Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anil Suresh Kamble, was appointed as a Constable/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in February 2001 on a purely temporary basis. His services were terminated on 30th August 2001 under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The appellate authority dismissed his appeal on 9th March 2002. The petitioner challenged the termination in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, contending that his termination was illegal as it was done without following the principles of natural justice and without holding an enquiry. He argued that his appointment letter stated that he would be made permanent in the near future, implying that his appointment was not temporary and he had a right to permanency. The respondents, Union of India and others, defended the termination as valid under Rule 5, which allows termination of temporary employees without assigning any reason or holding an enquiry. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the termination was valid. It observed that the petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis and his services were terminated under Rule 5, which does not require a prior enquiry. The court distinguished the case of Vikas Ramesh Patil v. Union of India relied upon by the petitioner, noting that the facts were different. The court concluded that the mere statement in the appointment letter about the possibility of being made permanent did not confer any right to permanency. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary Employment - Termination under Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - Validity - The petitioner, appointed as a temporary Constable/GD in CRPF, was terminated under Rule 5 without enquiry. The court held that termination of a temporary employee under Rule 5 does not require a prior enquiry as it is a termination simpliciter and not a punishment. The principles of natural justice are not attracted in such cases. (Paras 2-4) B) Service Law - Right to Permanent Employment - Appointment Letter - The petitioner argued that the appointment letter stated he would be made permanent in the near future, thus his appointment was not temporary. The court rejected this contention, holding that the mere possibility of being made permanent does not confer a right to permanency. The appointment remained temporary and could be terminated under Rule 5. (Paras 3-4) C) Service Law - Precedent - Reliance on Vikas Ramesh Patil v. Union of India - The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Vikas Ramesh Patil v. Union of India, Writ Petition No.4884 of 2002. The court distinguished the case, noting that the facts were different and the judgment did not apply to the present case. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of services of a temporary employee under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 without holding an enquiry is valid, and whether the employee has a right to be made permanent based on a statement in the appointment letter.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The termination of the petitioner's services under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is upheld.
Law Points
- Termination of temporary employee under Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules
- 1965 does not require prior enquiry
- Appointment letter stating possibility of permanent employment does not create right to permanency
- Principles of natural justice not attracted for termination simpliciter under temporary service rules
