JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Electrical Engineer on November 6, 2007 on temporary basis (adhoc). The petitioner further claims that such appointment, which was initially for a period of one year, was extended from time to time and the petitioner is still performing his duties as an Electrical Engineer under Indian Statistical Institute (for short “the said Institute”). Pursuant to an advertisement dated June 30, 2021 inviting applications from eligible persons for recruitment to several posts including the vacant posts in Engineering Assistant (Electrical), he applied for the said post.

2. The petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to allow him to sit in the examination by relaxing the age bar as provided in the employment notification since the petitioner apprehended that he would not be allowed to sit in the said examination. A prayer for regularisation of the service of the petitioner in the Institute as Electrical Engineer Assistant was also made.

3. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition the examination was held and the petitioner appeared in the said examination. He submits that the petitioner was not considered for appointment to the said post by the Institute only on the ground that the petitioner was over aged. He further submits that even assuming though not admitting that the petitioner could not be considered for such appointment in view of the age bar, however, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis by following the recruitment procedure i.e. by holding interview of the candidates who applied for the post in terms of the notification, which was published in the Bengali daily the Ananda Bazar Patrika on January 23, 2007 and also that he is working as Electrical Engineer since November 2007 the appointment of the petitioner should have been regularised. He submits that since a large number of contractual employees are still working, the Institute ought to have framed a scheme for the purpose of regularization of the temporary/casual/adhoc workers in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC. He further submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT 352 of 2022 (Madhusudan Pramanick vs. Chief Executive Officer (Administration & Finance), Indian Statistical Institute) has held that the authorities have the power to condone the age bar. He also refers to an unreported decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.1007 of 2021 on March 25, 2021 and submits that the petitioner having performed his duties for a sufficiently long period of time and having acquired considerable experience for performing the duties of Assistant Electrical Engineer, the authority ought to have granted proper weightage for his experience while considering the candidature of the petitioner at time of finalizing the list of candidates pursuant to the employment notification dated June 30, 2021.

4. Per contra Mr. Gupta, learned advocate representing the Institute submits that the writ petitioner was allowed to participate in the said examination and that the petitioner could not come within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post in question. He further submits that a temporary/casual/adhoc employee cannot claim any right to be regularized in a permanent post.

5. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

6. Prayer (a) of the writ petition wherein the writ petitioner prayed for allowing him to apply for the post and to sit for the examination at the present point of time has become redundant in view of the fact that pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner for appointm