ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance for an appropriate direction upon the respondents to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioner on permanent basis who has been working as Project Assistant with effect from 27.10.95 under Special Assistance Programme and further for payment of regular pay-scale to the petitioner.
2. Petitioner’s case is that in 1963 on the recommendation of the Education Commission and in consultation with the Universities, the University Grants Commission established a scheme for developing a limited number of university departments in Research and Training in selected fields Under the University Grants Commission Special Assistance Programme, the. petitioner was appointed on the post of Project Assistant in the Department of Applied Geology and he submitted his joining on 27.10.95 to respondent No. 1, the Indian School of Mines. It is contended that the project in which the petitioner has been working, is a continuous programme and it does not close even for one hour. Petitioner’s further case is that initially, he was appointed for two years but on the recommendation of the Supervisor and Dean, the tenure of appointment of the petitioner was extended up to 23.3.98. The services of the petitioner would be governed by the terms and conditions of the Special Assistance Programme. It is stated that although the programme was extended for further period of five years and for that purpose funds were sanctioned by the University Grants Commission, the services of the petitioner were not extended for the reasons best known to the respondents which was to expire on 23.3.98. The petitioner, therefore, gave a representation to the Deputy Secretary (SAP) Division of the University Grants Commission for extension of his services and the case of the petitioner was duly recommended by the Co-ordinator-Special Assistance Programme. It is further stated that in spite of expiry of the tenure of services, the petitioner was directed to work on the said programme since the programme could not even be closed for a day. It is further stated that the respondents recommended the name of one Sri Hari Ranjan Singh for transferring his services to Indian School of Mines for his absorption with effect from 24.3.98 and finally vide office order dated 14.5.98 his services have been absorbed but no decision for absorption of the services of the petitioner has been taken by the respondents.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it is, inter alia, stated that the status of the petitioner is like that of a post graduate student to have higher degree and, accordingly, the petitioner cannot by any means claim himself for being regularized or absorbed in the employment of the respondent-school more so, when the appointment was not made by respondent No. 1, the Indian School of Mines. It is stated that the petitioner has deliberately tried to project himself as a project Assistant of the school which, in fact, is not correct rather, the petitioner is a project fellow only under the sponsorship of the programme of U.G.C. and. accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization/absorption in the respondent-school as prayed for by the petitioner.
4. I have heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.B. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the respondents.
5. From perusal of Annexure 1 which is the appointment letter issued by respondent No. 1, Indian School of Mines, it appears that the petitioner was appointed in the post of Project Assistant Under the U.G.C. Special Assistance Programme for a period of two years subject to further continuation on satisfactory progress and conduct. Respondent No. 1 issued an office order dated 21.11.97 extending the tenure of appointment of the petitioner up to 23.3.98. A copy of the office order has been Annexed as annexure 3 to the writ application. It further appears that vide notification dated 24.8.98 issued by Indian School of Mines, the petitioner was again appointed as Project Assistant with the approval of the University Grants Commission with effect from 21.4.98 for a period of two years on the salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month.
6. From the facts stated hereinabove, the admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed after interview as Project Assistant in the year 1995 for a period of two years and his services were extended up to 23.3.98 and on expiry of the said period afresh notification was issued by respondent No. 1 on 24.8.98 giving fresh appointment to the petitioner in the same post of Project Assistant for a period of two years with effect from 1.4.98 till 31.3.2000. Petitioner’s specific case is that although appointment of the petitioner was under U.G.C. Special Assistance Programme and the said programme is still continuing and the same will continue without any break, he is entitled to be regularized. This fact has not been denied or disputed by the respondents. The petitioner, therefore, moved this Court by filing this writ application on 20.11.98 seeking regularization/absorption of his services. When the respondents came to know about the filing of the writ application, they filed their counter-affidavit and also hurriedly issued an office order dated 5.3.99 whereby the earlier notification appointing the petitioner for two years, was modified to the extent that the services of the petitioner would be for one year and by the same order, the petitioner was informed that on the expiry of the one year, i.e., 31.3.99 the services of the petitioner would stand automatically terminated. This office order, in my opinion, prima fade, appears to be mala fide and by way of retaliation. Nowhere in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the conduct of the petitioner or his performance was unsatisfactory, rather, his case was very strongly recommended by respondent No. 1, the Indian School of Mines for his regularization. It is only because the petitioner moved this Court seeking his regularization in service, the impugned order has been issued. A copy of the termination order has been annexed as Annexure 20 to the amendment petition. At the very outset, therefore, I hold that the said letter of termination (Annexure 20) is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and cannot be sustained in law.
7. So far as regularization of the services of the petitioner is concerned, as noticed above, his case for regularization has been strongly recommended to U.G.C. It has been very categorically stated in para 23 of the writ application that the case of one Hari Ranjan Singh, a similarly situated person, was also recommended by the respondents and or the basis of then recommendation his services, have been absorbed in the Indian School of Mines. This fact has not been specifically denied by the respondents. In that view of the matter, it would be fair on the part of the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner also for his regularization in service.
8. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon an order dated 19.11.98 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2404/97(R) and submitted that in similar circumstance, this Court, dismissed the writ application holding that the termination of the service is not invalid. In my opinion, the facts of that case is quite different from the. present case. In that case, the writ petitioner was appointed as part-time chemist under a special programme and after completion of the work under the Special programme in which the petitioner was engaged, the services of the Writ petitioner were terminated. In the facts of the case, this Court held that no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner. In the instant case, as noticed above, admittedly the petitioner was appointed in 1995 in the post of Project Assistant for a period of two years which was again extended for further period up to 23.3.98 and again on expiry of 23.3.98. a fresh letter of appointment was issued on 24.3.98 appointing the petitioner for a further period of two years which was to expire on 31.3.2000 but because of filing of the writ application, the respondents hurriedly issued another office order whereby they purported to modify the notification dated 24.8.98 by reducing the period of appointment of the petitioner for one year and further terminated the services of the petitioner on expiry of one year.
9. This writ application is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization/absorption in service and to take a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.