JIGNESH B. PANWALA Vs. THE ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two Original Applications, the applicants have primarily prayed for regularisation of service. Since similar question of law is involved and similar reliefs have been prayed for in both the Original Applications, a common order is being passed. However, the facts of the two O.As. are stated separately herein below:

(2.) THE applicant was appointed in the post of Junior Engineer vide order dated 06.05.2003 after being sponsored by the Employment Exchange for selection to the post of Junior Engineer. A duly constituted Selection Committee selected the applicant in the said post. But in the appointment letter, the applicant was offered a post of Junior Engineer on work -charged establishment. The terms of appointment, as laid down in the said appointment letter was that the appointment was temporary and would not confer any right for permanent employment. The applicant might be terminated at any time by a month's notice given either side, i.e., appointee or the Appointing Authority without assigning any reason. The applicant was appointed on 06.05.2003 for the period up to 28.02.2004. The applicant's service was extended time -to -time by issuing orders.

(3.) THE respondents have filed their reply. The respondents contentions are, inter alia, that despite having been appointed in a work -charged post since 1998, the applicant alleged non -grant of regularisation of his service. The applicant participated in the selection process for regular appointment, therefore, the applicant was estopped from pursuing the present O.A. The Recruitment Rules were framed in 2001. The Memorandum dated 03.12.2007 relied on by the applicant has since been withdrawn by the respondents vide O.M. dated 03.12.2008. The applicant has to undergo regular selection process. The claim of the applicant for regularisation de hors the rules does not arise.