- (1.) MR. Sobhit Saharia, Adv. for the petitioner, Sri N. B. Tewari, learned Addl. Advocate General/chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Sri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned Sr. Coun sel assisted by Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
(2.) BY the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : a. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus command ing/directing the respondents to regularise the services of the pe titioner on the post of electrician in the respondent department, b. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner, c. Allow the writ petition with cost. After filing the writ petition, the petitioner has moved amendment appli cation for adding additional para in the grounds as well as in the prayer clause of the pleadings. After the Court's per mission the amended relief incorporated is as under : bb. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 2/-09-2005 passed by respondent no. 2. This Court on 16-12-2004 has passed order that since the petitioner has already worked for more than 11 years' and the work of Electrician is perennial in nature, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue on the work of Electrician till further orders of this Court.
(3.) THE petitioner was granted one week time on 21-02-2006 for filing re joinder affidavit. On 26-04-2006 the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. Again on 06-06-2006, the petitioner was granted two weeks' time to file rejoinder affidavit, however no rejoinder affidavit has been filed till today. On 28-0/-2006, the case was listed under the title for order matters; on that date this Court passed order to list the case on Monday i. e. on 31st July 2006 under the caption of final hearing. Accordingly, the parties were heard at length. The petitioner has filed an expe rience certificate issued by the Finance Controller, Center for Development Stud ies, U. P. Academy of Administration, Naintial. A perusal of this certificate re veals that the petitioner was engaged as Electrician by the Centre for Develop ment Studies, ATI, Nainital sometimes in the year 1993 and continued till 2004. Even after passing of the Court's order dated 16-12- 2004, the respondents did not permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Electrician and have also filed counter affidavit. In para-6 of the counter affidavit it has been averred that the petitioner has never worked in the Administrative Training Institute for any period in any capacity, and he had worked only for the Centre for Develop ment Studies Academy of Administra tion, which is an autonomous body within the ATI. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not liable to be regularised.;