A. J. SADASHIVA, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH this petition is listed for preliminary hearing, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition for quashing Annexure-A by issue of writ of certiorari and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner in the civil engineering department as teaching assistant or to absorb the services of the petitioner in the concerned civil engineering department as lecturer since he possessed the requisite qualification.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a holder of masters degree in civil engineering. He passed his b. e. , during the year 1985 with first class and, in the year 1986 he was appointed by the respondent-university as a teaching assistant in the scale of Rs. 600 to Rs. 1,300/- on temporary basis as per Annexure-C. It is his case that, till the date of presentation of the petition, the petitioner was working in the same cadre but on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,100/- as fixed by the respondent-university in the year 1993. It is also on record that, during this period, he secured masters degree in civil engineering as per annexure-b. The petitioner having been appointed in the year 1986 was continued in his post as a teaching assistant from time to time by issuing separate orders appointing him every time for a period of six months.

( 4 ) THE respondent by his note dated March 4, 1993 sent to the finance officer, Bangalore university, has stated that, in view of the fact that there are no posts of teaching assistants in the university, the services of the petitioner and persons similarly situated cannot be continued and further stated that the salary for the period of their working may be disbursed. In view of Annexure-A the note dated March 4, 1996 issued by the registrar, the petitioner's services were discontinued. The petitioner having been aggrieved by the order of termination of his services has presented this petition for the reliefs mentioned in the first paragraph of this order.

( 5 ) SRI mohammed farooq, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that, the note issued by the registrar as per Annexure-A is without jurisdiction as he has no power to discontinue the services of the teachers of the university and his consequential relieving from the duties by the head of department is illegal and invalid. He next contended that, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Private college Stop-Gap Lecturers' Association v State of Karnataka and others, the university may be directed to take appropriate action for regularisation of his services either in the cadre in which he has been working or in the cadre to which he is eligible.

( 6 ) SRI m. n. sheshadri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the petitioner has no legal right to seek for regularisation of his service as there is no cadre, such as teaching assistant in the university. He has further contended that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of six months and his appointment automatically comes to an end by efflux of time and no writ can be issued directing the university to continue the petitioner in his services as he has not been in service after the expiry of the period to which he was appointed.

( 7 ) IT is true that the petitioner was appointed as a teaching assistant temporarily for a period of six months in the year 1986. It is also true that after the expiry of the period for which he was appointed, he was relieved from his service, but he was continued again temporarily for another period of six months; similarly, he was continued as a teaching assistant on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,100/- per month by various orders till 11-3-1996, the date on which he is stated to have been relieved of his duties. It is fairly admitted by Sri m. n. sheshadri, the learned counsel appearing for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document