- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur on his application vide appointment letter dated 6.9.2000(Annexure-6) bearing order no. RIT(E) 3668/2000 issued by the Principal of the Institute. Petitioner's father admittedly died on 3.5.1980 and as the respondents pointed out, he had already been dismissed from service in the year 1977 before his death.
(3.) In the present writ application the termination of petitioner's appointment vide order contained at Annexure-12 dated 17.2.2005 issued by the Director of the Institute has been challenged inter-alia on the ground that it suffers from non-application of mind and it fails to deal with the contents furnished by the petitioner through his reply to the show cause being Annexure-10 and 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one of the reason to terminate the petitioner's services is that his elder brother was already in service. However it is submitted that the elder brother of the petitioner was in service since 1968 and the death of the petitioner's father occurred on 3.5.1980. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was engaged on daily wage since 1992 and in the year 1999 the respondents- R.I.T, Jamshedpur constituted a committee for consideration of regularization of such employees. Petitioner also had claimed regularization or in the alternative he be appointed on compassionate ground. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after 5 years of petitioner's appointment, termination of his services have been effected on the basis of scrutiny conducted by the respondents in view of the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.S. No. 680 of 2002 preferred by one unsuccessful candidate namely Mithilesh Kumar citing instances of discrimination in the matter of appointment in R.I.T. It is submitted that the impugned order is cryptic and unsupported by reasons and therefore, it should be quashed as non of the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner has been taken into account.;