As per case facts, the plaintiff, a temporary orderly appointed in May 1977, had his services terminated in August 1984. This was set aside on appeal in November 1984, and ... he was reinstated. Subsequently, his services were terminated again in April 1985, citing 'no longer required'. His appeal against this order was dismissed in August 1985. He then filed a suit seeking a declaration that these termination orders were illegal and stigmatic. The trial and first appellate courts dismissed his suit, leading to this Regular Second Appeal. The question arose whether the termination of a temporary employee, which was ostensibly innocuous, could be deemed punitive and illegal, especially after prior disciplinary proceedings and reinstatement, and whether long service grants such employees rights against termination without due process. Finally, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the termination order was innocuous, not stigmatic, and consistent with the terms of temporary appointment allowing termination without cause. It affirmed that temporary employees have no right to the post and that preliminary inquiries do not make a simpliciter termination punitive. No claim for regularization was made, nor was parity with regular employees established, and the service period did not meet regularization parameters.