K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the termination ordered by Ext. P16 and confirmed in appeal by Ext. P44.

2. The petitioner initially was appointed on daily wage basis in the 1st respondent Information Kerala Mission (IKM), which was initially a mission-group drawn from Centre for Development of Imaging Technology (C-DIT) for implementation of a scheme titled "Kerala Information Network for Local Bodies". The scheme or its working is not relevant for the above case.

3. The petitioner, admittedly, was initially employed on daily wage basis in IKM and had been continued from September 1999, as is indicated at Ext. P8. The petitioner then was appointed as GIS Draftsman on a consolidated salary, on contract basis for a period of one year, as is evidenced from Ext. P10. The petitioner was, admittedly, continued in the 1st respondent; when he was terminated by the impugned order.

4. The actual status of employment of the petitioner is not revealed from the records. The petitioner has produced the Service Rules applicable to the C-DIT and takes a contention that he had been regularly appointed to such employment, which is regulated by the said Service Rules. However, Ext. P12, proceedings of the Executive Chairman & Director of the 1st respondent indicates otherwise. As was noticed earlier, the mission-group was initially constituted from the C-DIT, but, however, Ext. P12 reveals that the 1st respondent employed people of various categories including Resource persons, Consultants, Professionals etc on short term contract basis and such personnel were also positioned in Local Self Government Institutions (LSGI) for assisting Data Entry works and training. The salary of such persons were remitted by the concerned LSGI to the 1st respondent and disbursed by the 1st respondent. The remaining staff available in the 1st respondent was deployed division wise, as approved by the Government, in line with the Report of Centre for Management Development. This indicates that the employees of IMK were not employees of C-DIT and the Service regulations produced herein would only be applicable to the employees of C-DIT, some of whom also were deputed to the 1st respondent.

5. The petitioner was deployed, as is indicated at Ext. P12, as a Senior Technical Officer at the Head Quarters. But, for such deployment, the petitioner is not able to prove that he had been regularly appointed and the appointment order produced at Ext. P10 is only of a contract employment for one year, which obviously, was extended in the later periods also. That is the specific contention taken in the counter affidavit also. The petitioner refutes the contract employment in the reply affidavit, with reference to paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition. The writ petition, through the above paragraphs, produce Exts. P9 to P12; which do not establish the claim of permanent appointment.

6. The petitioner admittedly was appointed as a contract employee by Ext. P10, pursuant to Ext. P9 notification. Ext. P9 specifically calls for appointment to temporary project positions. IKM is a project of the C-DIT and is not a permanent establishment, nor is there anything to show that the temporary project positions are converted to posts in the C-DIT. Ext. P11 addressed the grievances of such personnel in IKM and as a measure of rationalisation, classified the posts (temporary) into 13 categories with appropriate designations on the basis of service. Ext. P11 also has not been produced in its entirety. The designation conferred on the basis of the year of service does not confer a permanent status. The re-deployment of personnel made within the IKM by Ext. P12 also does not deviate from the contractual nature of the employment of personnel like the petitioner.

7. While so, the petitioner was issued with Ext. P13 memo of charges. The memo related to diversion of funds sanctioned for a project, the implementation of which was the responsibility of the petitioner.