( 1 ) THE main question before this Court in this writ petition is whether the services of the petitioner as Technical assistant a in the Engineering Maintenance division, National Remote Sensing Agency ( nrsa for short) Balanagar, Hyderabad should be ordered to be regularised, and secondly whether the action of the respondents 2 and 3 seeking to terminate the employment of the petitioner pending receipt of approval from the Respondent No. 1 is illegal, unjust and unsustainable.

( 2 ) THE petitioner s case is that he was appointed as Technical Assistant a on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000/- by Office order No. 665/93 dated 14-7-1993, initially for a period of 6 months with effect from 14-7-1993. By Office Order dated 12-8-1993, the emoluments of the petitioner were increased to Rs. 2,300/ -. However, by an order dated 9-1-1994, the appointment of the petitioner was treated as Contract Appointment by the Recruitment and Review Section. It is this action of Respondent No. 2 (NRSA) which is challenged in this writ petition.

( 3 ) FURTHER according to the petitioner, the proposal for sanction of the post of technical Assistant a on regular basis has been forwarded by the NRSA to the department of Space (Respondent No. 3) for approval. Respondent No. 3 in turn directed respondent No. 2 that the nature of the petitioner s appointment be altered to appointment on contractual basis on the ground that the proposal for creation of the post of Technical Assistant a on regular basis was pending for approval by respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant a on temporary basis for a period of six months on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 2,000/- per month by Office Order dated 14-7-1993. By a subsequent order dated 13-1-1994, the competent Authority extended the period of appointment for a further period of six months from 13-1-1994. By a further office order dated 15-7-1994, the period of the petitioner s employment was extended for a further period of six months commencing from 13-7-1994.

( 4 ) FURTHER according to the petitioner, the Head of the Engineering Maintenance division of Respondent No. 2 specifically raised the issue relating to the manpower s strength to be kept on regular basis as he found it difficult to secure execution of works spread over different areas. It was in these circumstances, perhaps that Respondent No. 3 suggested that a few persons be engaged on job contract basis for meeting the immediate requirement of the Engineering Maintenance division, till the approval of the Department of space was received. It was also simultaneously impressed upon the officials present in the meeting held on 28-09-1995, that the department of Space should expedite conveying its approval for deployment of additional employees strength on regular basis, and that such approval be accorded.

( 5 ) IT is further the case of the petitioner that the initial period was limited to only one year but by taking into consideration the fact that he had been in continuous employment for over two years, the Director expressed certain difficulties for continuing him in service any further on temporary basis. Thus according to the petitioner, the sole and only reason for discontinuing the services of the petitioner was none other than the delay in conveying the approval which according to him should not come in his way of employment. The petitioner had been appointed as temporary Technical Assistant a after going through the process necessary for regular selection. But for the fact that the sanction had not been conveyed by the department of Space, the petitioner would have equally been continued in service on par with other Technical Assistants recruited along with him.

( 6 ) FURTHER according to the petitioner another person recruited along with him as technical Assistant a is still continuing in employment of the Respondent No. 2. Further, according to the petitioner the tota