HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRI T PETI TI ON No.11958 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Veda Vikas Mudiraj V, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf

of Respondent University.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the

prayer as under:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more in the nature of

Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent University in not considering the case of the petitioner for regularization of services in the Respondent University despite 28 years of continuous, uninterrupted service, by issuing Notification No.3/2021 dated 31.03.2021 as wholly illegal, unjust and arbitrary or in the alternative, not considering the case of the petitioner for payment of minimum of Scale-pay (Time scale pay) on Par with Regular Employees, as wholly illegal, unjust and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to absorb/regularize the service of the petitioner or pay minimum of the Pay Scale for the services being rendered by the petitioner

and pass such other order…”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in

support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-

i) The petitioner completed MA(Urdu) and also obtained qualification in typewriting English lower and Diploma in Computer programming and Diploma in PGDCA. The petitioner was appointed as computer operator in 1993 in the respondent university on contract basis through an Employment exchange and working as such till date. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made several requests to the respondent university to regularize the services of the petitioner but the respondent university did not consider the same.

ii) It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent regularized the services of the casual labourer, who were appointed in 1992-1993, in pursuance to the order dated 26.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.27776 of 2014, however the case of the petitioner is not considered for regularization by the respondent university.

iii) It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent university released a recruitment notification No.03 of 2021 dated 31.03.2021 for the post of computer operator (to replace the petitioner) wherein the age limit of the applicants should be 18-34 years whereas the petitioner’s age is 46 years with 28 years of experience as computer operator. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:-

(A) The relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, in particular, para Nos.5, 8 and 9 are extracted hereunder:-

“5. In reply to paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit, I submit that during the pendency of process of recruitment to the post of (Junior Assistant cum Typists) and as per the policy of the Government, to carry out day-to-day works in the office, the University has outsourced the personnel through outsourcing agency, until the posts are filled on regular basis. The petitioner is neither a contractual employee nor person engaged on daily wage by the University. The petitioner in her affidavit under cause title has stated that she is working as Computer Operator (Contract employee) and on the other hand has also referred that she has been working under outsourcing contractor and as such she is not clear as to whether she is a contract employee or outsourcing personnel. There is no post of Computer Operator and her services were provided by the outsourcing agency against the post of JACT. The salary to the petitioner was paid by the outsourcing agency.

8. I submit that the salary to the petitioner is being paid by the outsourcing agency (who is under contract period with the University) and as such there is no employer and employee relation between the University and the petitioner. Hence, the averment of the petit