ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Manju Rani Chauhan, counsel for petitioners and Sri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Hem Pratap Singh for he University.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the advertisement published by the Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as 'University') for making appointment by direct recruitment on the post of Laboratory Attendant vide advertisement No. 1/2006-07 (Code No. 71) and have further sought a writ of mandamus commanding the University to regularize/absorb the petitioners on the post of Laboratory Attendant in the faculty of Science of the University.

(3.) The facts in brief as pleaded in the writ petition are that most of the petitioners had worked as casual or daily wage unskilled or skilled, Laboratory Attendant, Skilled Librarian, Lab Attendant etc. The Deputy Registrar, Administration-ll informed Dean, Faculty of Science vide letter dated 28.9.2004 that the Vice- Chancellor has approved to appoint Laboratory Attendant (9 posts) on contractual basis subject to the condition that action for regular appointment be taken at the earliest. One post of Lab Attendant was sanctioned in the department of Biochemistry, two in the department of Botany and six in the department of Chemistry. Consequently, advertisements were published on 1.10.2004 and 3.12.2004 in various news papers inviting applications for making appointment on contractual basis on the post of Laboratory Attendant on fixed pay. Petitioners applied, faced selection committee and were ultimately appointed as Laboratory Attendant on contractual basis in different departments in the faculty of Science and since then are continuously working. The facility like bonus, leaves and others etc. have been provided to the petitioners. It is said that some Office Assistants who were also appointed in similar fashion on contract basis were later on absorbed by the University on the post of Junior Clerk. During the course of argument, Smt. Manju Rani Chauhan, Advocate admitted that the rules, which she has filed have been superseded by later provisions and the present case would be governed by the rules framed by the University on 29/30.3.1996, a copy where has been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. It is said that the University proceeded to make regular selection/appointment on the post of Lab Assistants whereagainst the petitioners were working and with this intention the impugned advertisement was published in December 2006. Challenging thereto, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition and it is contended that the vacancies on which the petitioners are working should not be allowed to be filled in by any further recruitment and instead the petitioners should be regularized on the said post. It is said that the decision of the University to fill in the said vacancies by direct recruitment amounts to policy of hire and fire and further in one case of Office Assistants, when they have already absorbed the persons as Junior Clerk, similar benefit ought to be extended to the petitioners. It is also said that since petitioners were appointed after advertisement and,therefore, they are not illegal appointees and, hence, they are entitled to be considered for regularization.