Supreme Court: Temporary employees not entitled to automatic regularization. Emphasizes fair selection processes.

The Supreme Court clarified that temporary employees do not have an automatic right to regularization, emphasizing the importance of proper selection processes. The Court ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the High Court's decision and dismissing the writ petition without imposing costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the regularization of a temporary employee in the U.P. State Services, alleged discrimination in regularization, and the legality of terminating the services of the employee.

Regularization of Temporary Employee:
The Respondent, holding a B.A.M.S. degree, was appointed under the Anshkalik Scheme but alleged that the State Government's actions were against the spirit of previous court decisions. The Respondent claimed entitlement to regularization based on satisfactory work performance and certificates from the Chief Medical Officer. The High Court had allowed a similar petition before, emphasizing violation of constitutional articles and directing consideration for regularization within six months.

Termination of Services and Representation:
The Respondent's services were terminated on 16.4.1991, leading to unsuccessful representations for regularization and wage parity. Despite a Special Leave Petition filed against the High Court's decision being dismissed, no regularization occurred post that dismissal.

Alleged Discrimination and Legal Stand:
The Respondent argued discrimination by citing instances of others being regularized. However, the counter affidavit stated the Respondent was a temporary employee and not in service after 16.4.1991. The High Court's decision in favor of the Respondent was appealed against, emphasizing the need for U.P. Public Service Commission's selection for regular appointments.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court, citing precedents, clarified that temporary employees have no automatic right to regularization. The Court highlighted that the High Court cannot regularize employees and emphasized the need for proper selection processes. The Court ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the High Court's decision and dismissing the writ petition, with no costs imposed.

---