STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. PRADIP BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. TK Ray, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. TD Majumder, Addl Govt Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. S. Talapatra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) This writ appeal has been carried from the judgment and order dated 19.8.02 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 241 of 1993 by which the appellants were directed to regularise the service of the respondent No.1, the writ petitioner in Civil Rule No. 241 of 1993 (herein after referred to as respondent) and to allow him to continue in his job.

(3.) Challenging the impugned judgment and order, Mr. Ray, learned Advocate General has forcibly argued that the respondent was appointed purely on ad-hoc basis as a Lower Division Clerk under the establishment of Weights and Measures against the vacant post. The appointment letter issued to the respondent clearly reflected that his appointment was, being on ad hoc basis, only for three months. The offer of appointment was issued on 21.10.92, when the formal appointment letter was issued on 17.12.92 giving effect from 26.10.92. But the learned Single Judge committed error of law as well as facts in directing the appellants to regularise the service of the respondent ignoring the above factual aspect and, as such, the impugned judgment ex facie suffers from perversity and illegality. According to him, the respondent was admittedly over aged in the time of his appointment and he himself made a prayer for relaxation of age by placing the matter before the Cabinet. It is contended that the respondent submitted application for appointment of Assistant Teacher on 29.9.88. Though on that day, he was within the age limit, at the time of his appointment on 17.12.92, he was already over aged. Further, since the petitioner had never asked for any appointment as Lower Division Clerk, his ad hoc appointment at the present post itself is a nullity. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate General that as the respondent was appointed clearly on ad hoc basis only for three months commencing from 26.10.92, he was to be terminated from service by 25.1.93 as his terms was over on 25.1.93, but he was allowed to continue for another few months by the local office due to the necessity of the Department but without any Govt order. After 25.1.93, the respondent does not have any legal right to continue in service. He has been continuing in service on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court on 2.8.93. Therefore, the question of regularisation of his service does not arise as directed by the learned Single Judge. It is further contended by the learned Advocate General that the learned Single Judge committed grave error of facts in holding that the respondent was going to be replaced by another ad hoc employee, when neither of party raised such issue of replacement by another ad hoc employee.