PANKAJ KATHURIA Vs. CENTRAL ZOO AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is this The petitioner, aged about 35 years old, joined the respondent, Central Zoo Authority as daily wager Data Entry Operator on 16.03.1998 and was appointed w.e f 01 07 1998 on contractual basis His services were extended from time to time without any interruption. The petitioner received threats from his senior officials that his services would be terminated. On 27/01/2005, respondent considered agenda item No 8 suggesting to regularize the contractual employees. However, no final decision has yet been taken. The petitioner has put in more than eight years of contractual service and has become overage for all the other government jobs. There is no recruitment rules for the post of Data Entry Operator in Central Zoo Authority It is alleged that the action on the part of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional because the petitioner has legitimate expectation and a right to be regularized as the Data Entry Operator. Again, non regularization of the petitioner for the post of Data Entry Operator is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, the present writ of mandamus was filed with the prayer that the respondent be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner for the post of Data Entry Operator w.e.f. 01.07.1998.

(2.) Respondent has contested this application. In his reply the respondent made the following averments. The post of Data Entry Operator is not a sanctioned post either under the Act or any Rules made thereunder. The services of the petitioner were engaged only for the purpose of creating a data in order to facilitate the smooth functioning of the authority and monitoring its progress. The minutes of the meeting dated 27.01.2005, upon which the petitioner has placed reliance also clearly spell out that the EFC of the Central Zoo Authority for the 9th/ 10th plans had approved the creation of two posts of Scientists, one post of Registrar- cum-Supermtendent and had desired that the remaining positions including the petitioner be continued/be operated on contract basis In the absence of there being a sanction of Data Entry Operator, there cannot be any regularization of the petitioner Again, the mere continuation of the services for a sufficient period of time, as he has not been able to complete the assignment given to him, cannot create any right in favour of the petitioner for being regulanzation, which is not provided for or sanctioned by the competent authority. Again, petitioner's contention that there is no recruitment rules for any of the post in Central Zoo Authority is also misleading as all regular posts were filled up as per recruitment rules which are duly notified. Whenever Central Zoo Authority filled any regular post, the same was advertised in Employment News/Newspaper, the tests for recruitment were conducted by ISTM and the contention of the petitioner that the respondent follows pick and choose policy is wrong. Even in the case of contract basis engagement, respondent follows maximum transparency. In the case of contract basis regarding Scientists, the respondent circulates the posts to Institute/University of repute for circulation/forwarding of candidates required for specific field. The respondent has placed on record all the advertisements and notifications/gazettes published by the authority including the extract of an advertisement dated 15.04.2005, published in Hindustan Times, which is reproduced as follows.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted fact that the contract between the parties regarding the services of the petitioner came to an end in February, 2006. On 13.02.2006, my Predecessor passed the following order, "In the meantime, status quo as to the petitioner's services shall be continued till next date of hearing." The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions. He argued that there are no recruitment rules for the post of Data Entry Operator in Central Zoo Authority. There is no sanctioned post. These posts are kept for hand-picked retired persons as is evident from the above said extract of newspaper dated 25.04.2005. Although, petitioner has been serving the respondent for the last eight years, yet, his post is yet to be sanctioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards the following extract in agenda item No.8 with the heading a Strengthening of the establishment of the Central Zoo Authority"