STATE OF U.P. vs RAM ADHAR

The Supreme Court held that an ad hoc appointee, such as the respondent who was appointed as a Stenographer for three months and failed the qualifying test, has no inherent right to continue in service until a regular appointment is made, as established in State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore, (1991) 1 SCC 691. The Court emphasized that temporary employees do not possess a right to the post and set aside the orders of the High Court that allowed the respondent to continue in service. The appeal was allowed, reinforcing the principle that merit should be the sole criterion for appointments requiring special skills.