LAW FOR ALL

PERSONAL STAFF ON CO-TERMINUS BASIS- whether the employees who are appointed on a co-terminus basis have any right to continue in service after the cessation of the engagement of the person with whose engagement their services were made co-terminus.= In another judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat and Anr. Vs. P.J. Kampavat and Ors. reported in 1992 (3) SCC 226, this Court had occasion to look into a similar situation. That was a case where persons concerned were appointed directly in the office of the Chief Minister on purely temporary basis for a limited period up to the tenure of the Chief Minister. This Court held that such an appointment was purely a contractual one, and it was coterminus with that of the Chief Minister’s tenure, and such service came to an end simultaneously with the end of tenure of the Chief Minister. No separate order of termination or even a notice was necessary for putting an end to such a service. 20. We have to note that in the present case the M.L.A. concerned was to function as the Chairman during the course of his tenure as an M.L.A., and had resigned with the announcement of the election for the state assembly. A proposal for regularization of the co-terminus employees appointed by him was directly sent to the Governor without the same being routed through the State Government. Similar such proposals have come to be rejected. As observed by this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharam Pal reported in 2009 (4) SCC 170, the requirement of being employed through proper channel could not be relaxed in an arbitrary and cavalier manner for the benefit of a few persons. This would be clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 21. This being the scenario, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, and the subsequent learned Single Judge have erred in passing the orders that they have. The High Court has erred in deciding Writ Petition No.3181 of 2008 by directing the board to implement the 2Page 21 resolution/note issued by the Chairman and approved by the Governor. The Division Bench has also erred in leaving the order passed by the learned Single Judge in that petition undisturbed. So has the learned Single Judge erred who heard the second Writ Petition. For the reasons stated above both these appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgments and orders in Writ Appeal No. 1131 of 2011 as well as one in Writ Petition No. 3181 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 13428 of 2010 are setaside. Writ Petition No. 3181 of 2008 and 13428 of 2010 shall stand dismissed. Consequently the Interim Applications in both these appeals, and the Contempt Petition No.1841 of 2011 filed by the respondent in the Madras High Court will also stand disposed of. In the facts of the present case we do not pass any order as to the costs.