KORAN ATCHUTA RAMAIAH Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER RAJAHMUNDRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a dec laration from this Court to the effect that the respondents' conduct in preventing the petitioner from discharging his duties as peon in the office of the 2nd respondent is illegal and void.

(2.) The respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis initially for the period from 19-9-94 to 12-10-94. His temporary services were extended for 56 days from 13-10-94 to 7-12-94, and for a further period of 30 days from 8-12-94 to 16-1-95. The petitioner in all worked foraperiodof 120 days. No termination order was issued because the letter of appointment itself specified the period for which the appointment was made.

(3.) Further according to the respondents, 112 vacancies of peon, including the vacancies reserved for SC/ST were likely to arise, for which the minimum educational qualification was a pass in the 9th standard with a minimum of 35% marks in each subject. Employment notice in this regard was published in Eenadu, Rajahmundry Division, and that it was clarified in the said notice that candidates who were appointed on or before June, 1993 and worked in temporary capacity for a period of 85 days in a financial year would be allowed to compete in the recruitment test, provided they satisfied the eligibility conditions, including the relaxation of upper age limit; but the petitioner did not apply in response to the said employment notice and did not compete with other candidates. Therefore, according to the respondents, merely on the basis of temporary service for a short period of 120 days, the petitioner could not legally agitate any claim to hold on to the post permanently.