VALMIKI J.MEHTA,J - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner Sh. Azeem Akhter seeking direction to the respondent-2-University/Jamia Hamdard Deemed University for regularizing the service of the petitioner to the post of Security Inspector in terms of the decision of Executive Council of the respondent no.2 dated 4.11.2006.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed initially on contractual basis for a period of two years in terms of the appointment letter dated 2004. Actually, the appointment in terms of the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed was to be for five years and not for two years, and therefore, the appointment letter provides for extensions for completing a total period of five years after review of performance. The petitioner completed the original period of two years of service and further period of three years of service. Petitioner's service has thereafter been extended from time to time by ad hoc appointments of six months. Petitioner claims that the Executive Council of the respondent no.2 in its 55th Meeting held on 4.11.2006 passed a Resolution for regularizing the appointments of contractual employees such as the petitioner, but the petitioner has not been regularized though other employees such as one Ms. Aisha, Staff Nurse has been regularized vide respondent no.2's letter dated 27.3.2008. Petitioner claims implementation of the Resolution of the Executive Council of the respondent no.2 dated 4.11.2006 and seeks parity with Ms. Aisha. 3. A reading of the counter-affidavit shows that there is no dispute that the Executive Council of the respondent no.2 has passed the Resolution dated
(3.) 11.2006 for regularization of contractual appointees. So far as Ms. Aisha is concerned, the counter-affidavit only conveniently states that she was regularized on the basis of her individual merit. Though, it is stated that her case is different from the petitioner, it is not pleaded as to how her case is different from that of the petitioner. I may note that the counter-affidavit though mentions that Ms. Aisha was found fit by the Appointment Committee for regularization, however, it is not stated in the counter-affidavit that petitioner has been found unfit by any Appointment Committee. 4. Since the language of the relevant part pertaining to regularization of contractual employees in the Resolution of the 55th Meeting of the Executive Council of the respondent no.2 dated 4.11.2006 is relevant, the same is reproduced as under:- "ES55(10) RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED TO LOOK INTO THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES OF CONTRACTUAL APPOINTMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE CONCIL. Prof. mohd. Amin pointed out that the Executive Council had already approved conversion of existing contractual appointments into regular once. The emphasized that the cases for regularization of those employees who are already working as contractual basis be taken up as early as possible he further stressed that these employees should not become junior to those employees who are now being appointed by the university on regular basis and that the interests of the existing employees should be taken care of. The Secretary clarified that as per the recommendations of Prof. Amin Committee. Assessment Committees for teaching and non- teaching employees have been constituted and their reports are being processed. He further clarified that if the services of an employee working on contractual basis is regularized his/her seniority will not be affected. Thereafter the following Resolution was adopted "resolved that the action taken on the minutes of the 55 th meeting of EC held on 04/11/06 are noted and approved wherever necessary" ;