AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 274 wordsBarin Ghosh, C.J.
Delay Condonation Application No. 8284 of 2011
Being satisfied with the reasons, furnished for the delay in preferring the appeal, and there being no serious objection for condonation of delay, we allow the application for condonation of delay.
Special Appeal No. 179 of 2011
From time to time, until 1994, Appellant was engaged on daily wage basis to work as an instructor. In the year 2005, Appellant in a writ petition contended that he be permitted to make a suitable representation to the concerned authorities. That was allowed. While making the representation, Appellant held out that many people are working on contractual basis as instructors and many posts of instructor are still vacant and, accordingly, Appellant be accommodated on contractual basis in one of those posts of instructors. This representation was disposed of on 19th July, 2006, holding out that no sooner advertisements will be published, Appellant may respond to the same. Being aggrieved thereby, 5 years later, Appellant filed a writ petition and by the judgment and order under appeal, the said writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay.
In the appeal, it is being contended that it is the Director who should have decided independently and not on the basis of pre-suppositions of the Principal of the institution.
We feel that the claim of the Appellant is not sustainable at all. No Court nor any authority can compel an employer to enter into a contract of employment with an employee.
The representation of the Appellant, the writ petition and the present appeal are thoroughly misconceived and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.