ANITHA Vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF TEA DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was working in the office of the first respondent as a casual Typist-Clerk since 28th August 1987. She was selected for the post being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Contention of the petitioner is that she has put in more than 500 days of service as casual Typist-Clerk in the office of the first respondent and that she apprehends termination of her service instead of regularisation. A writ of mandamus is sought directing the respondents to regularise her service as Typist-Clerk and also to give her salary and other attendant benefits as given to regularly employed Typist-Clerks with effect from 28th August 1987. A direction to the respondents not to terminate her service is also sought.

(2.) Ext. P-1 is the intimation received by the petitioner from the Employment Exchange. It shows that the job of Typist-Clerk was offered to her on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 20. Ext. P-2 reveals that though petitioner's standard was not entirely satisfactory, she was appointed purely on a temporary daily wage basis. Ext. P-2 in categoric terms shows that the appointment was till a permanent appointment is made to the post.

(3.) Respondents 1, 3 and 4 filed counter affidavit stating that on the date of petitioner's engagement as a Typist-Clerk she was about 26 years old, that there is no provision in any rules for relaxation of the age limit except in the case of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and as the petitioner was over aged she cannot at any rate claim regularisation. It is also contended by them that the petitioner being appointed only on purely temporary basis she cannot make a claim for regularisation.