TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 15th March, 2004 passed by the learned West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal in OA 89 of 2003.
(2.) Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the land of the petitioner's father was acquired for the Teesta Barrage Project. The State authorities took a decision to provide employment to candidates hailing from the land loser's families, as would be explicit from the Labour Department Circular dated 17th October, 1977. The petitioner was thereafter asked to participate in a selection process. In response thereto, the petitioner duly participated in the interview and the written test and emerged successful and his name was included in the panel. Thus, the petitioner was not appointed dehors the recruitment rules. On a purported plea of lack of vacancies the petitioner was denied permanent appointment and instead he was engaged as a temporary Job Amin since there was a pressing need for survey work in the Chapra Block in the district of Uttar Dinajpur. The fact that the petitioner had rendered service for 2627 days for the period from the month of June, 1990 till the month of September, 2002 stands admitted by the respondents, as would be explicit from the letters dated 18th July, 1990, 7th January, 1997, 12th May, 1997, 2nd September, 2002 and 29th October, 2002. The petitioner's engagement was periodically extended but with certain break period in between so that the petitioner cannot claim that he had rendered a continuous period of service. After utilising such service rendered by the petitioner for a long continuous period over a span of more than 10 years, his extension of engagement was abruptly and illegally denied by the respondents subsequent to the month of September, 2002, without granting any opportunity of hearing and by adopting a hire and fire policy.
(3.) He further submits that the petitioner was denied permanent appointment in a regular establishment though four other similarly situated persons, whose names appeared along with that of the petitioner in the memorandum dated 7th January, 1997, were permanently absorbed. The State as the model employer cannot act arbitrarily and such discrimination as practised by the respondents warrants interference of this Court.;