T. N. C. RANGA RAJAN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in this Writ Petition seek regularisation of their services. The 1st respondent is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, admittedly a wing of the Central Government. It had advertised for the posts of Project Scientists, the minimum qualification being M. Sc. or M. A. in the relevant subject. The post was purely temporary for a period of one year against a Project and carried a consolidated monthly salary. The petitioners applied for the posts. The 1st petitioner was appointed on 4-9-1991 and the 2nd petitioner on 4-8-1991 as Project Scientists (Geography ). Their term was extended for a further period of one year and subsequent extensions were given. Later, on 6-6-1994, they were appointed on contract basis with periodical extensions upto 2-12-1995 in the case of the 1st petitioner and upto 30-11-1995 in the case of the 2nd petitioner. The petitioners claim that conversion of the jobs into a contract was only a camouflage for the purpose of defeating the claim of the petitioners for regularisation. The petitioners, therefore, filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to absorb them in regular vacancies.

( 2 ) IN the counter-affidavit it was stated that the appointments are temporary appointments against a contract work and when the work ceased the services of the petitioners had to be terminated. It was also stated that the petitioners should not question the termination by reason of the contracts coming to an end and since they are not in service the question of regularising their services could not arise. It was also stated that the petitioners while working under contract have also applied for regular posts but were not successful. It was also stated that there is not enough work to justify the extension of the contracts in the case of the petitioners as the work was being attended to by the regular incumbents.

( 3 ) THE petitioners thereupon filed additional affidavit stating that the respondents have additional works in view of implementation of action plans and the respondents have also published their on-going projects which required extra hands. In the additional affidavit they claim that there was sufficient work-load even on the date of removal of the petitioners and hence the termination was mala fide. The petitioners have also filed a reply-affidavit giving details of the ongoing projects and claiming that they are not been appointed for any particular project and since they have been utilised for different projects at different times it could not be said that they were employed only for a particular project. It was also stated that inspite of their long experience and meritorious track record they were removed and they faced the same interview committee which selected them temporarily and which recruited the candidates for permanent posts. They had been ignored as ineligible by having a cut-off mark which was not relevant to them. The respondents filed an additional counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners cannot compare themselves with regular incumbents and further that the petitioners have been duly considered for recruitment in the regular posts, but unfortunately they did not fare well in the interview. In the second additional counter-affidavit it was stated that though there were ongoing projects the policy of the organisation was to handle them with regular Scientists with adequate man-power and execute them more efficiently and not to rely upon the ad hoc Project Scientists or temporary hands. However, it is stated that the petitioners may apply to the National Remote Sensing Agency as and when vacancies are notified and their applications will be duly considered in accordance with the Rules.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in a similar case viz. G. Srinivas v. Union of India, 1997 (4) ALD 68, which came up for consideration in this Court, a learned single Judge came to the conclusio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document