AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. K. C. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner/ applicant and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
For the reasons stated, restoration application is allowed. Petition is restored to its original number.Â
Learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken
up for final hearing.Â
Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as daily wager in the respondent University on
01.11.2001 and worked there till 30.09.2010. On 10.08.2010, an advertisement was published for filling up one post of Project /Programme Fellow
under B. Tech (Bio Tech.) Programme on a consolidated salary. Petitioner applied for the same and got selected. He joined his duties under the said
project on 30.09.2010.Â
Dr. Uma Melkania has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is submitted that no evidence has been
provided in the writ petition with regard to the working of petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.2001 to 30.09.2010. However, she admits that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Programme Fellow under self-financed B. Tech (Biotech.) programme on a fixed stipend.Â
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working with respondent University since 01.11.2001, therefore, he is entitled
for regularization under the Regularization Rules, 2013.
Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the respondents has submitted that Regularization Rules 2013 are applicable only to those workers, who are
working on the sanctioned post from the State Government for the University not for the worker working in the Project.Â
Petitioner is working under a self-financed programme and he is not working against the sanctioned vacant post of University, therefore, no
direction for regularizing the service of the petitioner can be passed. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Â