ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction on the respondents, namely, The Chairman & Managing Director, Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited (in short 'HUDCO') to reinstate the petitioner in service as Data Entry Operator. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 2 through a contract agency, namely, Industrial Development Corporation Limited to work on HUDCO projects at Andrewsganj as Computer Programmer from 9.8.1995 to 30.9.1996, that thereafter the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 2 as Data Entry Operator and was posted as such with respondent No. 1 (Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment) on deputation, that respondent No. 3 was also appointed along with petitioner and was posted with respondent No. 1, that meanwhile respondent No. 2 conducted interview and test for the post of EDP Assistant Grade-III and thereafter called the petitioner for interview, that the petitioner was successful in the test and interview but was not appointed to the post, that the respondent No. 2 appointed 17 persons on regular service as EDP Assistants Grade-Ill but did not appoint the petitioner although the vacancies were reserved for scheduled castes candidates and the non-appointment of the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory and that though the respondent No. 1 requested respondent No. 2 to continue the services of the petitioner upto 31.7.1999 respondent No. 2 did not do so and did not agree with respondent No. 1 to continue the services of the petitioner as Data Entry Operator. It is also contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 had imparted training to the petitioner in Computer Fundamentals, Disk Operating System and Wordstar and also paid a stipend of Rs. 5007- per month to the petitioner with the intention of appointing the petitioner in its organization but respondent No. 2 did not continue the petitioner in service despite such training. The prayer of the petitioner is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2 to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential relief.

(2.) The petition is contested by respondent No. 2. In the counter affidavit it is contended that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc/casual basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2500/- per month for a work of temporary nature, that he was initially engaged for the National Conference of the Housing Ministers and subsequently his services were utilized for implementation of NHHP 98th World Day Celebration and thereafter for another conference, namely, "Housing The Challenges and Solutions" and that the last extension given to the petitioner ended on 30.4.1999. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 2 that HUDCO has its own recruitment rules and regular employment of HUDCO is governed by HUDCO R & P Rules under which the posts are required to be notified to the employment exchange and advertised and candidates selected only on fulfilling the eligibility criteria apart from clearing tests and interviews. The appointment of the petitioner, it is alleged, was purely ad hoc for the purpose of meeting temporary requirements without undergoing the recruitment process as provided in the HUDCO R & P Rules. Further it is contended that minimum educational qualification for the post of EDP Assistant Grade-Ill is Graduate with a certification of Data Entry Operation from a reputed institute whereas the petitioner is neither Graduate nor holds a one year certificate in Data Entry Operation from any reputed institute.

(3.) The petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that he was a regular employee of respondent No. 1 and an injunction to restrain respondent No. 1 from terminating his services. The civil suit was dismissed. The writ was filed thereafter. It may also be mentioned here that the petitioner, inter alia, has alleged discrimination in the matter of his non-selection sometime in the year 1990. Neither the details of the previous selection process nor the defence thereto is required to be stated because the relief relates to the period of 1998-99. So far as the training is concerned, it is submitted that the training was a welfare measure for the employees of HUDCO and their kith and kin and that training did not give the petitioner any right to be absorbed in respondent No. 2 organization.