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.

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.