CHANDAN SINGH RANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief: - -

(2.) AVERMENT has been made in the OA that an advertisement was issued by the respondent No. 4 on 2.5.2007 for filling one post of Clerk reserved for Orthopedically Handicapped on fixed emoluments of Rs. 5600/ - p.m. (Annexure A -1). The applicant possesses the qualification of Bachelor of Arts, Diploma in Computer Operation and Programming Assistant from ITI Chandigarh in the year 2001 was duly issued a National Trade Certificate in this regard. As the applicant possessed the requisite qualification of the post of Clerk as per advertisement dated 02.05.2007 and the name of the applicant was also registered in the Regional Employment Exchange, UT, Chandigarh, his name was duly forwarded by the Regional Employment Officer for appointment to the post of Clerk. The applicant was called for typing test to be held on 28.05.2007 and on 07.09.2007, the applicant was issued appointment letter as Clerk on contract basis in the respondent No. 4 college (Annexure A -7). On expiry of the contractual period, the applicant was relieved from his duties vide letter dated 05.03.2008 and was again appointed on 13.3.2008 as such. The applicant worked in this manner during 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 with extensions being given to him from time to time and some days break also being there between the different periods of the contractual appointment. The last extension of the applicant was on the post of Hostel Clerk and was also given additional work of the seat of A -4 and the consolidated salary of the applicant was fixed @ Rs. 22,300/ - on 08.11.2012 (Annexure A -9) and the extension of the applicant was only till 31.03.2013.

(3.) SINCE the applicant was initially appointed on 7.9.2007 by a proper selection procedure through Employment Exchange and had been working till date on contractual basis with artificial breaks and had rendered more than 5 -1/2 years service, the applicant made inquiries from the respondents as to whether his case was being considered for regularization. However, the applicant had come to know that the respondents were in the process of issuing a fresh advertisement for filling the post against which the applicant was working. Hence, this OA.