GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 9. 5. 2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 30. 3. 2002 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director Research, Directorate of Research, Rajasthan Agricultural University) by which the services of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from 31. 3. 2002 with the expiry of project the quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- i) That on the recommendations of Selection Committee, the petitioner was appointed on the post of skilled helper on adhoc basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 900/- through order dtd. 15. 11. 90 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner) under the Scheme named as "promotion of Research and Development on Hybrid in Selected Crops on Maize, Pearl Millet and Cotton". ii) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner worked on the post of skilled Helper till 10. 3. 99 and services of the petitioner were terminated through order dtd. 10. 3. 99 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) Directorate of Research, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner) on the ground of completion of aforesaid project. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that on the very same day through order dtd. 10. 3. 99 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) the petitioner was appointed on the post of Skilled Helper at the fixed pay of Rs. 900/- per month at Agricultural Research Station, Sri Ganganagar under the project named Genetic Improvement of Gossypium Arboreum for fibre quality parameters, High yield and insect pest resistance". iv) Further case of the petitioner is that since he was working with the respondents for last 12 years, therefore, he submitted a representation (Annex. 4) to the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) for regularisation of his services. v) Further case of the petitioner is that the representation (Annex. 4) was forwarded by the Associate Director, Research to the Respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) with a recommendation to regularise the services of the petitioner. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that the Board of Management had passed a resolution dtd. 11. 2. 98 (Annex. 5) regarding regularising the services of various persons appointed on ad hoc/casual/fixed pay basis by screening them through Screening Committee. vii) Further case of the petitioner is that the Senior Cotton Breeder vide his letter dtd. 3. 8. 2000 (Annex. 6) requested the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) Directorate of Research) to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Agriculture Supervisor. viii) That the respondent No. 1 (Registrar Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner) vide his letter dtd. 29. 12. 2000 requested the Associate Director, Agricultural Research Station, Sri Ganganagar to furnish a list of employees working on casual/adhoc/contract basis. THE Associate Director, Agricultural Research Station, Sri Ganganagar submitted detailed information with regard to the employees working on casual/adhoc/contract basis through letter dtd. 6. 1. 2001 (Annex. 7) in which name of the petitioner stood at serial No. 3. ix) Further case of the petitioner is that through impugned order dtd. 30. 3. 2002 (Annex. 8) passed by respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of completion of aforesaid project. x) Further case of the petitioner is that after the order dtd. 30. 3. 2002 (Annex. 8) was passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research), the petitioner approached the Senior Cotton Breeder who in turn apprised the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) through communication dtd. 26. 3. 2002 (Annex. 9) that the petitioner had worked for 12 years under the respondent - University and he further recommended that his services may be adjusted on some other post so that his services may be utilized in Cotton Improvement. Further more, the Associate Director (Research), Agricultural Research Station) had himself requested the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) through communication dtd. 2/3. 4. 2002 (Annex. 10) to adjust the petitioner on the vacant post of Agricultural Supervisor. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. In this writ petition the order dtd. 30. 3. 2002 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) has been challenged and the learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions: i) That since the petitioner had worked under the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) Directorate of Research) for last more than 12 years and has now become over-age for getting employment in any other Govt. department, therefore, on equitable ground, termination of services of the petitioner is bad in law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ii) That not only this, the persons who have worked on casual basis for a long period, their services should not be terminated abruptly and their services should be regularised. iii) That since throughout his service career, the services of the petitioner were found satisfactory, therefore, in view of these circumstances, termination order dtd. 30. 3. 2002 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) cannot be sustained. Hence, the writ petition be allowed. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their main case is that this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner had alternative remedy available to him before the forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Apart from this, since the petitioner was an adhoc employee, his services stood terminated with the expiry of project on 31. 3. 2002. It has further been submitted by the respondents that since in his appointment orders dtd. 15. 11. 90 (Annex. 1) and 10. 3. 99 (Annex. 3) there was a condition that his service would come to an end automatically after expiry of the project, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner was first appointed through order dtd. 15. 11. 90 (Annex. 1) passed by respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) on the post of Skilled Helper at fixed pay of Rs. 900/0 per month and he worked up 10. 3. 99 when his services were terminated through order dtd. 10. 3. 99 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research ).
(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that through order dtd. 10. 3. 99 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Director (Research) Directorate of Research), the petitioner was again appointed on the post of Skilled helper at the fixed pay of Rs. 900/- per month at Agricultural Research Station but under different project. Thus, i) On the same day i. e. on 10. 3. 99 when the services of the petitioner stood terminated, he was given another appointment but in different project. ii) The fact remains that the petitioner was under the employment of respondent No. 2 (Director (Research), Directorate of Research) from 15. 11. 90 to 30. 3. 2002. There is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner's work was found satisfactory and i. e. why his case for regularisation of services was recommended from time to time by superior authorities. There is also no dispute on the point that in the appointment order dtd. 15. 11. 90 (Annex. 1) and order dtd. 10. 3. 99 (Annex. 3), there was a condition that services of the petitioner shall stand terminated automatically with the completion of the project. ;