MADHU V Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has been working under the 3rd respondentFluid Control Research Institute, since June 2006, filed this writ petition apprehending termination from service, seeking directions to the respondents to extend him all the benefits of a regular employee.

(2.) The initial appointment of the petitioner was as Junior Research Engineer for the period from 14.06.2006 to 30.01.2008 on contract basis and thereafter he worked as Junior Research Fellow from 31.01.2008 to 30.01.201 The case of the petitioner is that while working as Junior Research Fellow he had attended an interview for regular appointment to the post of Junior Research Engineer held on 09.12011 and thereafter on the basis of selection in that interview he has been working as Junior Research Engineer. It is stated that in the official records maintained by the 3rd respondent, petitioner was described as Junior Research Engineer only, without specifying the nature of appointment and not as a contract employee. It is also pointed out that contributory provident fund was also being deducted from his salary as seen from Exts.P6 and P7. The petitioner claims that he has been working as regular employee since 10.12011 and he satisfies all the qualifications prescribed in Ext.P8 staff rules of 3rd respondent as well as Ext.P10 rules. Asserting that the petitioner is being denied the benefits of regular employees he has filed this writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to grant him all the benefits admissible to regular employees. While claiming that petitioner is a regular employee and is entitled to get the benefits of a regular employee, petitioner also claims that he shall not be replaced by another contract employee.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 as well as respondent no.3 have filed separate counter affidavits denying the contention of the petitioner that he has been working as Junior Research Engineer, producing documents relating to the service rendered by the petitioner, under the 3rd respondent. Along with the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent has produced Ext.R3(a) note dated 14.06.2006, by which the petitioner was originally appointed on contract basis for one year on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.6, 000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) Attendance registers for the relevant periods are produced to show that petitioner was working on contract basis. Ext.R3(c) is the extract of attendance register for the month of February 2016, January 2017 and January 2018 in which the petitioner's name is shown among the contract employees. In Ext.R3(d) list of contract employees as on 31.12.2016 the petitioner's name figure serial no.(1). It is stated that recruitment of Engineers in regular cadre is made after advertisement and the 3rd respondent had conducted such selection after issuing Exts.R3(e) and R3(f) notifications in 2010 and 2011. It is stated that petitioner did not submit application pursuant to Ext.P10 notification, which was for appointment of Research Engineers. Though petitioner submitted Ext.R3(g) application pursuant to Ext.R3(f) notification issued in 2011, for appointment as Research Engineer, and was called for interview, it is stated that he was not selected, since he did not have the requisite qualification and eligibility prescribed for that post, viz. degree in Engineering with 65% marks in the qualifying examination and upper age limit fixed was 30 years. Producing Ext.R3(g) application it is pointed out that petitioner is having only 60.2% marks in B.TEch Degree in Mechanical Engineering. It is also pointed out that as per the recruitment rules the petitioner is not qualified for appointment as Research Engineer and he is over aged. It is stated that even after the interview held in 2011, petitioner continues to be a contract employee.