Raj Balam Prasad & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Background
Eight persons, including the four appellants, were given temporary appointments as "Muharrirs" (clerks handling certificate cases) in the Collector's office at Saran, Bihar, in 1987-88 under a special temporary-appointment rule, and their terms were extended only until 1991. Years later, five of the eight (not including the appellants) had their services regularized by a 2006 order, prompting the remaining appellants to seek the same benefit through representations and litigation. A Single Judge of the Patna High Court ordered the State to regularize the appellants, but the Division Bench reversed this, holding that since their temporary terms had already lapsed in 1991, there was no basis for regularizing them decades later.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's view and dismissed the appeal. It held that a temporary appointment made for a fixed period under a special rule does not create any right to continued service, let alone permanent status, once that period lapses without further extension. The Court found that the 2006 regularization of the other five Muharrirs could not be relied upon as a precedent, since that order itself was legally doubtful and had even triggered a vigilance inquiry. Since the appellants' temporary tenure had ended in 1991, no circular or administrative practice issued years later could revive a claim to regularization.
Lesson Learnt
A temporary or fixed-term government appointment does not automatically convert into permanent employment merely because of the passage of time or because some similarly situated colleagues were later regularized through a doubtful process: a specific legal right to regularization must exist under the applicable rules.