JUDGMENT :

DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.

The petitioner, who is a qualified person having B. Sc., I.T.I. with valid electrician license to perform the duty and work of electrician, has filed this application assailing the office order dated 07.09.2012 in Annexure-1, whereby the authority has disengaged him from the duty after 07.09.2012, the date of expiry of his contractual engagement.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that College of Engineering and Technology (CET), Bhubaneswar is a technical institution under the BPUT. It issued advertisement on 06.08.2008 for walk-in-interview for selection to different posts including the post of electrician on contractual basis fixing the date of interview on 14.08.2008. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner appeared at the interview for selection to the post of electrician on contractual basis on consolidated remuneration of Rs.3200/-per month. The selection committee selected the petitioner and recommended his name for appointment and accordingly he was appointed on 01.09.2008 on contractual basis for a period of six months and the opposite parties from time to time extended the said contract period by passing several extension orders. Lastly, on 30.06.2012, the contractual period of the petitioner was extended for a period of three months from 08.06.2012 to 07.09.2012 with revised salary of Rs.5200/-per month. Thereafter, on 07.09.2012, the opposite parties issued a tender call notice inviting tenders from the experienced service providers to provide electrician, mason-cum-plumber and carpenter for a period of one year with effect from the date of award of contract. In the said tender call notice, opposite party no.5 required four nos. of electrician on contract basis. As a result, the petitioner, being only selected person by following due procedure of selection, faced termination on completion of contract period, though similarly situated employees filed writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(C) Nos.812 of 2011 and 21768 of 2012 and pursuant to the status quo order passed by this Court are still continuing in service. Hence this application.

3. Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner, having been selected by following due procedure of selection and allowed to continue on contractual basis with a consolidated salary, should not have replaced by another set of contractual employee pursuant to the tender call notice issued on 07.09.2012 and, as such, the action of the authority not only amounts to exploitation of labour but also arbitrary and unreasonable. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Dillip Kumar Baral v. Biju Pattnaik University and Technology (BPUT), represented through the Registrar, Rourkela and another, 2013 (II) OLR 210.

4. Mr. L. Samantray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that it is a matter between petitioner and opposite party no.5, therefore the State has no role to play.

5. Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party no.4-BPUT states that opposite party no.5 is one of the institutions imparting technical education having been affiliated to the university. Therefore, with regard to appointment under opposite party no.5, opposite party no.4 has no control. Thereby, in the present context, this opposite party has no role to play.

6. Mr. S. Udgata, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 strenuously urged that since the petitioner was engaged purely on contractual basis on a consolidated remuneration, after expiry of the period, he has to go automatically. In case of contractual employment, the service of the contractual employees comes to an end on completion of the period contract and, as such, no order of disengagement/termination is required to be passed in such type of employment. More so, the termination, on completion of contract period, does not attach any stigma. Therefore, the decision of the authority to disengage the petitioner and engage oth