Judgment:
ORDER
R.R. Prasad, J.
1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner served Army's Engineering Corps for 20 years as Sainik Nayak. During his tenure at Army, the petitioner passed 2nd Class Certificate Examination and also received Security Training involving handling of weapons, safeguarding Government property from theft, sabotage and fire risk. When the petitioner retired from Army, he was in search of civil employment and in that course, the petitioner was found suitable by the authority of the State Rural Development Institute, Ranchi to do the Job of Security Supervisor as the petitioner had that kind of training and as such, he was allowed to join as Security Supervisor on 25.6.2005 on a salary of Rs. 5000/- per month and discharged his duties to the full satisfaction of the authorities but the Director of the said Institute, who succeeded Mr. Sajal Chakravorty all on a sudden stopped taking work as Security Supervisor from the petitioner from 31.1.2007 without any rhyme and reason and as such, the petitioner was rendered service less at the age of 46 years and, therefore, the petitioner made representations before the various authorities but it did not bear any fruit and, therefore, there was no option left with the petitioner but to file this writ application praying therein to direct the respondent to reinstitute the petitioner and to regularize the services of the petitioner as a Security Supervisor at the State Rural Development Institute. Hehal, Ranchi.
2. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was engaged on temporary basis on honorarium of Rs. 4000/- plus other allowances on a condition that arrangement is purely temporary and it cannot be made basis of appointment in future. When there was no need of service of the petitioner, Director of the said Institute terminated the engagement of the petitioner with effect from 1.11.2006 and under this situation, petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Institute where the petitioner was working has two big campuses having valuable public properties which need to be safeguarded and, in fact, when it was felt that the service of the petitioner is needed for safeguarding those properties, he was engaged but without there being any change in the situation, the petitioner was disengaged from the service and as such, action of the respondent is quite arbitrary and, therefore, the respondent be directed to reinstate the petitioner and to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by directing the respondent to relax the prescribed age in case of the petitioner.
4. In this context learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to Uma Devi's case as reported in : (2006)IILLJ722SC , and also the case of Veer Kunwar Singh University Ad hoc Teachers Association v. Bihar State University (C.C.) Service Commission 2007 AIR (SCW) 4154.
5. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner was engaged on honorarium of Rs. 5000/- per month to supervise the services of night guards assigned with the duties to look after the safety of the properties of the State Institute. The engagement of the petitioner was quite temporary on the post of Security Supervisor which never appears to be a sanctioned post and that apart, petitioner never appears to have been engaged after following the process of selection and in that situation, no relief either of reinstatement or regularization can be granted to the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as has been referred to above as in those cases, authorities have been directed to regularize the services of the persons who had been working for ten years or more on sanctioned post and their appointments were not illegal rather irregular.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Hence, it is dismissed.