P SHANMUGANATHAN Vs. REGISTRAR TAMIL UNIVERSITY THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the Order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 25. 2. 1994 in W. P. No. 2336 of 1992.

(2.) THE appellant was temporarily engaged as a watchman under N. M. R. to watch the godown where the materials for the construction of the building at Tribal Research Centre of the Tamil University , Udhagamandalam were stored. He was first engaged for 80 days from 1. 5. 1986 on a daily wages of rs. 15. Subsequently, on different dates with different intervals in between, he was similarly engaged for 80 days at a time. After the expiry of every temporary appointment of 80 days, he was relieved and was reemployed for further periods after a gap of one week or so, as the case may be. THE appellant's services were finally terminated with effect from 4. 8. 1989, by the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 1. 8. 1989 in Na. Ka. No. P2/907/87on21. 12. 1989, the appellant requested the 1 st respondent to employ him either in the Tribal Research Centre, Udhagamandalam or in any other centre of the Tamil University and continue his services as a Watchman. He also raised a dispute before the 3rd respondent viz. , Labour Officer, udhagamandalam, who, by his order dated 26. 4. 1991 rejected his request by accepting the statement of the 2nd respondent/director of the Tribal Research centre, Udhagamandalam before him dated 25. 4. 1991.

(3.) THE writ petition was dismissed by M. S. Janarthanam, j. , by his order dated 25. 2. 1994 observing as follows: "there is no pale of controversy that Tamil university, Thanjavur, took up construction activity, relatable to Tribal research Centre located at Udhagamandalam in 1986. Yet another fact, about which there is no dispute is that for looking after materials relatable to such construction activity, the petitioner had been temporarily appointed as a watchman on a daily rated wage basis at Rs. 15 with specific condition attached to the order of appointment that his services are temporary and would be retained only for a period of eighty days or till the need therefor ceased whichever is earlier and subject to the further condition that his services are liable to be terminated at any point of time without assigning any reason whatever. It is not as if the petitioner' s services have been terminated much earlier to the need being ceased, though the University, as per the appointment order is having the right to do so and what had happened in his case that he had been terminated after the need had ceased, in the sense of the completion of the construction activity it had undertaken at Udhagamandalam. It is to be further noted that it is not as if he had been appointed as a watchman temporarily in any of the post of the watchman available in the University and had been terminated later and in his place a different person had been appointed and, if he had been placed in such situation, there could have been cause for complaint and that his termination is without any justifiable cause, requiring interference at the hands of this Court. In view of this matter, I do not think there is any impelling or compelling reason to go to the rescue of the petitioner by invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the constitution of India. THE writ petition, as such, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. "