A.GEETHARANI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to quash impugned orders of the second respondent in Ref.D.O. Letter No. 6781/K2/2011 dated 10.09.2012 and letter 6781/K2/2011 dated 18.09.2012 and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to re-engage the petitioner as Data Entry Operator under the respondents 1 to 3 forthwith.

(2.) The writ petitioner was engaged as Data Entry Operator in the office of the Sub Registrar Office at Bodinayakanur. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the petitioner is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator and the petitioner is working for a considerable length of time and therefore he is entitled to be regularized in the sanctioned posts in the regular time scale of pay. The petitioner is appointed in the year 2009 and her service is still to be regularized. The writ petitioner is working on consolidated pay and despite the fact that the works are available in the Sub Registrar Office and he was not regularized in the sanction post.

(3.) The learned counsel for the fourth respondent disputed the contentions by stating that ELCOT is a outsourcing agency engaged by the Government for the purpose of recruiting the candidates for the post of Data Entry Operators on temporary basis for consolidated pay. The terms and conditions of the appointment itself reveals that the writ petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay on temporary basis. This apart, he was not appointed by the State, more so, by the Competent Authority and therefore the writ petitioner is not entitled for regularization and permanent absorption. It is emphasized that the fourth respondent ELCOT is an outsourcing agency and therefore, the very claim set out in the present writ petition deserves no consideration at all.