- (1.) IN the instant writ petition, the petitioner has come up for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize his services as Lecturer in the INstitute of Engineering and Rural Technology, Allahabad (for short IERT) and also to pay him regular salary of Lecturer.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aditya Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3. The short facts giving rise to the instant petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was engaged as guest speaker on payment of Rs. 80/- per lecture to teach Mathematics and Mechanics in the department of Science and Humanities vide letter of engagement dated 5. 7. 2000 for one Semester. His appointment was purely temporary. It was further provided therein that on the basis of this appoint ment as guest speaker, he will not claim any sort of appointment on any post in the Institute and that if he was agreeable to accept this invitation/proposal on the terms and conditions contained in it. he should give his written consent and that his appointment will be for the period till completion of the course of Semester only. It was also provided in the letter of appointment that no payment shall be made if there is a holiday and if the students are not available. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions and joined as guest lecturer. He claims that since then he has been regularly teaching in the I. E. R. T. It has further been averred that for filling up the post of Lecturer, an advertisement was made in October, 2001 pursuant to which the petitioner also applied but the selection process has not yet started. The petitioner has, therefore, claimed regularization on the post of lecturer on the ground that he possesses all the qualifications for the post and as he has been working on the post since the year 2000, his services be regularized under the Rules.
(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 have filed a joint counter affidavit whereas re spondent No. 3 has given a separate counter-affidavit refuting the above claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavits in reply to the aforesaid counter-affidavits. Supplementary counter-affidavits and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have also been filed. We have gone through all of them and have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Shri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since he is continuing as lecturer for the last several years, he is entitled to be regularized. He further drew our attention to the letters issued from the Technical Education Board, copies whereof have been filed as Annexure 7 to the rejoin der affidavit and Annexure 2 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit and placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sangeeta Srivastava (Dr.) v. University of Allahabad and others, 2002 (3) ESC 320 and submitted that similar benefit may be extended to him.;