JUDGMENT
Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to regularise her service.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Attender by order dated 30.8.1994 passed by the Managing Director, Orissa State Co-operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited (for short “the Corporation”) under Annexure-1. The appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis. Her services were being extended from time to time. Since the petitioner has completed eight years of service, she claims regularisation. Such claim of the petitioner is based upon proceedings of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 25.10.1991 under Annexure-3.
3. The Corporation has filed a counter affidavit opposing the prayer for regularisation. According to the counter, Annexure-3 does not assist the petitioner as the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of the same. Moreover, Registrar of the Co-operative Societies as well as the State Government has issued orders prohibiting filling up of the vacancies. It is also stated that because of heavy loss sustained by the Corporation, a decision has been taken to reduce the manpower. On the basis of such decision of the Corporation, the engagement of the petitioner was not extended after 14.8.2002. Therefore, the petitioner was no more in the employment of the Corporation from 14.8.2002. Since the petitioner is no longer in the employment, question of her regularisation does not arise.
4. During the course of hearing, this Court by order dated 16.1.2004 had asked the Managing Director of the Corporation to file an affidavit indicating whether any person junior to the petitioner is continuing in employment. In pursuance of that order, an affidavit has been filed that three persons were engaged by the Corporation subsequent to the engagement of the petitioner, but they are no longer in the employment of the Corporation. It is also stated in the affidavit that no person junior to the petitioner is continuing in the employment of the Corporation.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that since the petitioner is ho longer in the roll of the Corporation, the prayer for regularisation is misconceived. It appears from the counter affidavit of the opposite party No. 3 that the services of the petitioner were not extended after 14.8.2002 which amounts to retrenchment. This retrenchment has also not been challenged by the petitioner. From the additional affidavit filed by the Corporation, it appears that no person junior to the petitioner is continuing in service. In such view of the matter, we are unable to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as available under the Industrial Disputes Act.
With the above observation, we dismiss the writ petition.