OMKAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for his permanent absorption/ap pointment against the existing vacancies of Work Supervisor and in case he is not ab sorbed, he may be given weightage/preference in the selection of such post.

(2.) THE Director, Hathkargna Evam Vastra Udyog Nideshalaya, U. P. , Kanpur, respondent No. 2, has issued advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of work supervisor. THE version of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 provides grant to various industrial co-operative societies in order to maintain effective con trol over the management of the societies. THE Director also used to recommend the names of qualified and eligible persons to the co-operative societies for appointment to the post of Manager/secretary. Respon dent No. 2 recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Manager/secretary. In pursuance of the said recommendation he was selected for the said post in M/s. Kargha co-operative Society Tandula Tanda, Rampur in the year 1979. He was given appointment letter on 15-10-1979. THEreafter he continued to work in different industrial Co-operative societies. THE last society where the petitioner worked was closed down in the year 1990. After the year 1990 he is working as Secretary/manager in a private society known as Ansar Vastra Udyog Samiti Ltd. , Tanda.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner was not under the service of respondent No. 2. He is alleged to have worked in different cooperative societies on the post of Manager/secretary on the recommendation of respondent No. 2. The mere fact that the petitioner had worked in different co operative societies does not confer any right to be regularised in service under respondent No. 2. The regularisation can be claimed by an incumbent who had worked under the same employer. Secondly, the petitioner is alleged to have worked in the industrial co-operative societies only till the year 1990 and thereafter he has not worked in any industrial co-operative society. It is alleged that he is working since then in Private co- operative society. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner cannot claim the right of regularisation to the post of Supervisor which is now being filled up by respondent No. 2.