DEBI PRASAD SENGUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 10, 2003 in C.O. No. 15974 (W) of 1995 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.
(2.) THE writ petitioners/appellants were appointed on contract basis as Temporary Site Engineers on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000/ - per month without any other allowance and any other benefit. The writ petition was preferred before this Court praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for regularizing their services. The writ petition was dismissed and hence, the present appeal. Admittedly, the writ petitioners appellants were appointed on contract basis and an agreement was also executed between the bank and the writ petitioners for such appointment. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants refers to the advertisement inviting applications for appointment in the said post of Temporary Site Engineers. In the said advertisement it was specifically mentioned that such appointment was purely temporary for a period of one year. From the appointment letter appearing at page 34 of the paper book, it appears that it was specifically mentioned therein that such appointment was for a period of one year and would automatically stand terminated on the expiry of the said period. It was also made clear in the appointment letter that such appointment was strictly restricted to a particular period and the candidate would not have any claim for permanent appointment in the bank. The main question, which fell for consideration before the learned single Judge, was whether the writ petitioners, whose appointment was a contractual appointment for a limited period of one year, can claim absorption/regularization in regular services of the bank.
(3.) IT is the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the appellants that the writ petitioners/appellants worked as Temporary Site Engineers for a long period and although such appointment was initially given for a limited period of one year, this was time to time extended by the bank authority and as such, they are entitled to be regularized in the regular services of the bank. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the nature of service was perennial in nature. The writ petitioners were primarily appointed to work under the instructions of architects for day -to -day supervision of the project work according to the specification and they were also required to keep a constant check on quality of workmanship of all the items of work. They discharged their duties for a long period to the satisfaction of the bank authority and accordingly, they are entitled to be regularized/absorbed in the services of the bank.;