PRAKASH CHANDRA PANDA Vs. INSTITUTE OF LIFE SCIENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's case in brief is that he has obtained the electrical workman's permit having passed 'c' Certificate Examination in the year 1992. The opposite party, Institute of Life Science being in need of electrician for looking after the maintenance of electrical fitting of the Institute conducted an interview and he got selected and appointed as electrician w. e. f. November 14, 1994 with an assurance that his service will be regularised after obtaining the approval for the post and till then the service of the petitioner would not be terminated. In the last part of 1996 in the month of October, 1996 in order to debar the petitioner's legitimate claim for regularisation, he was terminated and in his place one Pramod Kumar Bastia was appointed by order dated October 24, 1996 in Annexure 2. Since after October 30, 1996 the petitioner was not allowed to perform his duty. The petitioner therefore claims and prays for a direction to the opposite parties to regularise his service as electrician of the Institute and quashing the order of termination.

(2.) THE opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit denying the claim of the petitioner. It is specific stand of the opposite parties that the petitioner was never appointed but was given a job contract as an electrical contractor to look after the work of the Institute from November 14, 1994. The Institute has a number of electronic and electrical equipments and gadgets for the purpose of conducting experiments. There is a sanction post of Technician (Electrical/electronics) which requires the qualification of 3 years Diploma in electronics, with 2 years work experience in electrical work. The petitioner does not have the said qualification. However, after conducting the regular interview a person has been appointed to the said post. It is also averred that there is no sanctioned post of electrician in the Institute as alleged and that to manage the day to day electrical problems, the petitioner was engaged, as a contractor he having electrical workman's permit.

(3.) SHRI Das, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties referring to receipts in Annexures - C and D series submits that the receipts granted by the petitioner himself for various periods would indicate that he was working as a contractor and was being paid labour charges for electrical repair works of the Institute. It is his contention that at no point of time the petitioner was ever appointed against any particular post but was engaged as a contractor for doing electrical repairs and maintenance.