GOUTAM KUMAR GANGULY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 11457 of 2000(P), by which the writ petition was dismissed considering the fact that the petitioner -appellant herein could not have been allowed to be regularized or absorbed in the service of the respondent -State against the post of Junior Instructor as his appointment on the post was for a fixed term on the basis of a letter issued to him clearly indicating that his appointment was to remain effective only for a period of six months. The appointment of the petitioner -appellant thereafter was renewed for the second time for a further period of six months and thereafter his services were dispensed with. The petitioner -appellant thus was not in service when he had filed the writ petition claiming regularization/absorption in the service of the respondent -State on the post of Junior Instructor.

(2.) THE petitioner had further prayed for payment of his salary for the period from 27th July 1996 to January 1997 and from July 1997 to 14th November 1997, during which he had worked. This part of the prayer has already been allowed by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner -appellant also could not contest the position that he could not have requested the Court to regularize/absorb him as he was not in service on the date when he had filed the writ petition but he has sought to improve his case by seeking a direction from this Court that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in future considering his past experience. This request was not made before the learned Single Judge and the counsel for the appellant fairly accepted that he has not made any prayer to that effect in the writ petition, but he had requested that a direction should be issued to the respondents to consider his case in future.