Jayant Patel, J.
1. The petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the action of the respondents terminating services of the petitioners and a further prayer is also made that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioners to discharge the services and to draw their salaries pending hearing and final disposal of the petition.
2. This Court passed an order on 15/10/1990 issuing notice and it was directed to maintain status-quo. Thereafter, the petition was admitted and the interim order directing status-quo was continued. When this petition comes up for final hearing, on behalf of the respondents, an affidavit in sur-rejoinder has been filed by one G.B.Shah, Administrative Officer, Gujarat Agricultural University wherein it is stated as under:
“Both the petitioners appeared for interview in 1989 & 90. Petitioner No.2 has been selected and his name is in the Select List at Sr.No.6 among the Scheduled Caste candidates. Petitioner No.1 has not been selected for regular appointment at all.”
It is further stated in the said paragraph as under:
“A copy of the termination order dated 12-11-1990 sent to the petitioner No.1 which shows that much prior to his obtaining the order of status-quo, petitioner no.1 stood relieved. There is no question of his being continued in pursuance of the order of status-quo or not continuing him in breach thereof.”
3. Under the above view of the matter, since the petitioner no.2 is already selected and he has been given appointment as a regular employee, it is submitted by Ms. Pahwa that the petition does not survive so far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned.
4. As regards the petitioner no.1 is concerned, I have heard Ms. Pahwa, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Mazganvkar, learned advocate for Shri S.N.Shelat for respondents. It is contended by Ms. Pahwa that since appointment of the petitioner was for a period upto 31/03/1989 or until regularly selected candidate is available, the petitioner was not terminated on expiry of period 31/03/1989 and the petitioner no.1 was continued in service. It is also contended that it does not come on record that whether regularly selected persons were available or not and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to terminate the services of the petitioners. It was also contended that juniors to the petitioners were continued in services whereas the petitioner’s services were terminated. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that selection process has been undertaken and the said fact is also reflected because the petitioner no.2 was given appointment, who was one of petitioners of this petition and even the petitioner no.1 also participated in regular selection process. That selection process is undertaken during the period of year 1990 whereas termination of the petitioner no.1 is of 12/01/1990. Merely because, the petitioner no.1 is continued in service as a daily rated employee after expiry of period, as mentioned in the appointment order, it cannot be said that any right is created in his favour to continue in service, more particularly when the initial appointment was as a daily rated employee. However, so far as averments regarding continuation of juniors are concerned, the said averments are denied by the respondents in their affidavit-in-reply at paragraph 11. Under the above circumstances, it cannot be complained by the petitioner that the juniors are retained in service and the petitioners have been picked up for the purpose of termination.
5. Even if we consider over all facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, appointment order, which is produced on record at Annexure-B, Page 16, it is apparent that the petitioner’s engagement was only as a daily rated employee and it was an expressed condition that his services is liable to be terminated without any notice. The period is also mentioned, i.e., upto 31/03/1989 or until regularly selected candidate is available, whichever is earlier. Therefore, after 31/03/1989, it cannot be said that the petitioner no.1 has any right to continue in service nor the action of termination after that period can be said to be illegal in any manner.
6. Under the circumstances, none of the contentions raised by the petitioner no.1 can be accepted and the petitioner himself has also participated in the selection process and he has failed. It is well settled that temporary and daily rated employees cannot have better right in comparison to likely selected candidates. In Public Employment, it is required that posts should be filled in by only regularly selected candidates and daily rated employees cannot claim, as of right, that they must be regularized in services and their services should not be terminated even if regularly selected persons are available.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no substance in the petition and the petitioner no.1 is not entitled to any relief. Hence, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Interim Relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.