DILLIP KUMAR BARAL Vs. BIJU PATTNAIK UNIVERSITY AND TECHNOLOGY (BPUT), REPRESENTED THROUGH THE REGISTRAR, ROURKELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is listed for admission, but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned Advocate for opposite party No. 2.

(2.) Though notice was issued to opposite party No. 1, but none appears when the matter is taken up.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he has passed the degree course in Architecture in first class. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.07.2009 for the posts of lecturer in Architecture, issued by the Principal, College of Engineering and Technology (in short "CET"), opposite party No. 1, he appeared at the interview. In the said interview he was selected. On 29.08.2009 vide Annexure-2, opposite party No. 1 issued an office order appointing the petitioner as a lecturer in Architecture on contractual basis. On 8.07.2010, opposite party No. 2 issued an office order appointing the petitioner with consolidated remuneration w.e.f. 1.07.2010 to 31.12.2010 or till the post was filled up by the Biju Patnaik University and Technology (in short "BPUT"), opposite party No. 1 in regular manner, whichever is earlier. It is further stated that the appointment of the petitioner was extended by orders dated 8.07.2010, 24.01.2011, 26.07.2011, 21.01.2012 and 404.2012 vide Annexures-3 series. The further case of the petitioner is that instead of filling up the post by regular appointment as per the condition in the appointment order, an advertisement for the second time was issued on 26.05.2012 vide Annexure-4 for the same posts with same condition. The petitioner applied for the, same and was selected by the select committee. Thereafter he was appointed for the current semester, 2012 up to 31.12.2012 or till filling up the posts by regular appointment as per letter dated 26.07.2012 vide Annexure-5. It is further stated that the petitioner had continuously and satisfactorily worked as a lecturer for three and half years. Instead of filling up the posts by regular appointment, a third advertisement was issued for the same posts on 19.12.2012 vide Annexure-6. The petitioner again applied for the same. He further stated that the third advertisement was issued to accommodate some candidates on extraneous consideration and the same is mala fide.