Temporary appointment under statutory recruitment rules does not create regularisation rights by long continuance or legitimate expectation.

A temporary municipal appointment subject to selection through the Service Commission did not ripen into regular service merely because it continued for a long period. The SC held that the governing rule controlled the tenure, and the absence of a selected candidate actually joining did not create an enforceable right to regularisation or continued employment. The Court also held that legitimate expectation could not arise from continued service contrary to the express terms of appointment, absent any clear representation or lawful assurance that the temporary arrangement had been abandoned. The challenge to termination therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person appointed on a temporary basis under the municipal service rules could claim regularisation or continued service merely because the appointment was extended for a long period. (ii) Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation protected the appellant against termination in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): Whether a person appointed on a temporary basis under the municipal service rules could claim regularisation or continued service merely because the appointment was extended for a long period.

Analysis: The appointment was expressly made under the relevant municipal provisions as a temporary arrangement, subject to availability of a candidate selected through the Service Commission. The governing rule required such temporary appointment not to continue beyond the stipulated period without reference to the Commission for concurrence. The Court held that long continuance by itself does not convert a temporary appointment into a regular one, and there is no automatic right to regularisation merely because the appointee remained in service for many years. The non-joining of a selected candidate also did not create any enforceable right in favour of the appellant, because the controlling condition was availability of a selected candidate, not the actual joining by that candidate.

Conclusion: The appellant had no right to regularisation or to hold the post beyond the temporary arrangement; the challenge to termination failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation protected the appellant against termination in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The Court held that legitimate expectation arises only from a clear representation, established practice, or conduct capable of creating a lawful expectation of continuance or benefit. Mere continuation in service contrary to the express terms of the appointment does not amount to waiver of those terms or create a protected expectation. In the absence of any clear assurance by the authority that the temporary conditions had been abandoned, and where the statutory recruitment framework remained controlling, no substantive legitimate expectation could arise against the express service conditions.

Conclusion: The doctrine of legitimate expectation did not apply, and the appellant could not resist termination on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The temporary nature of the appointment and the statutory recruitment requirement prevailed over the claim for regularisation or continued service, so the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A temporary appointment made subject to recruitment through the prescribed statutory process does not mature into a regular appointment by efflux of time or long continuance, and legitimate expectation cannot override express statutory or contractual conditions absent a clear and lawful representation to the contrary.

---