H P NANJUNDA SWAMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who has passed Bachelor of engineering in Polymer Science and technology claims to have been appointed on august 21, 1995 as a Graduate Engineer trainee under the 2nd respondent. His services, as asserted by him, were continued from time to time. Petitioner further states that he was made to work as lecturer for post-Graduate Diploma Courses in Plastic engineering, Plastic Processing Technology. He was also attending other works like testing assignments, processing, technical service etc. In support of his claim for having rendered service under the second respondent, he has produced certain service certificates and has marked them as Annexure-A series apart from producing the extract of the attendance register as Annexure-B series. His grievance is that though several employees appointed along with him were continued in service his services were sought to be disturbed by discontinuing him which has made him to approach this Court. It is contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that though the work is available on permanent basis, the respondents have not made any recruitment to the post in which the petitioner is engaged. Since no attendance was given to the petitioner and his request for treating him on par with other regular employees for the purpose of pay and allowance was not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularisation or in the alternative for recruitment by giving service weightage for the total number of service rendered by him and also by giving age relaxation. A direction is also sought against the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner or replace him by appointing another temporary employee.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition contends that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of his service as he has continuously discharged his duties from 1995. He further submits that, the action of the respondents in refusing employment to him with effect from 2001 is arbitrary and unsustainable.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 taking me through the statement of objections filed principally contends that the petitioner is not entitled for any regularisation. His submission is that the petitioner was taken as a Graduate Engineering trainee for 3 years with effect from August 21, 1995 and upon completion of the training period he was taken on casual basis during the year 1999. He submits that the attendance record of the petitioner shows that he attended the work only for few days from March 1999 till 2001. He further submits that the period during which he was under training from 1995 to 1998 for a period of 3 years cannot be reckoned as period of service rendered by him. At any rate, from May 1, 2001 onwards the petitioner is not in service is his submission. Denying the allegation that the petitioner was denied the attendance, respondent No. 3 has contended that the petitioner cannot claim a right for regularisation of his service as no work is available to be given to the petitioner in the institution. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi 2006 (4) SCC 1 : 2006-II-LLJ- 722 to contend that in public employment, absorption, regularisation of temporary and casual employees is impermissible. Such directions cannot be issued unless the recruitment itself was made regularly.