The petitioner was engaged as last grade servant in Technical Higher Secondary School, Varadium with effect from 24.11.2003 for a period of 179 days on daily wage basis. By Ext.P1 order dated 9.12.2003, the Director, Institute of Human Resources Development accorded sanction to the petitioner’s engagement on daily wage basis for a period of 179 days from 24.11.2003. It was stipulated that he will have no claim for regular appointment under the Institute of Human Resources Development and the Director will have the right to terminate the engagement without assigning any reason. 2. The period for which the petitioner was engaged was till 21.5.2005. Shortly before that date, by Ext.P2 order the term for which the petitioner was engaged was extended by a further period of 179 days. The said period which expired on 16.11.2004 was again extended for a further period of three months by Ext.P3 order dated 28.10.2004. Still later, the engagement was extended for a further period of six months by Ext.P4 order dated 10.2.2005 with effect from 16.2.2005 and for a further period of six months with effect from 16.8.2005 as per Ext.P5 order dated 10.8.2005. It appears the engagement of the petitioner was extended for a period of six months by subsequent order and the said term came to an end on 15.8.2006.
The term for which the petitioner was engaged was not thereafter extended, with the result he was not engaged after 15.8.2006.
3. After the respondents ceased to engage the petitioner, the Institute of Human Resources Development took a decision to continue those employees who had put in service of more than five years or more as on 14.11.2006, in service on an ad hoc basis. Employees who had put in service of more than five years as on 14.11.2006 but had been disengaged thereafter, thereupon moved this Court by filing writ petitions claiming re-induction/regularisation in service. The writ petitions were dismissed by judgment delivered on 9.9.2010. They carried the matter in appeal. The appeals were heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P8 judgment delivered on 15.3.2011 recording the submission made on behalf of the Director, Institute of Human Resources Development that the case of the appellants before this Court will also be considered for continuance in service on an ad hoc basis, if they were in service and had put in five years of service or more as on 14.11.2006. The Division Bench directed that in the event of the appellants filing individual representations before the Director, Institute of Human Resources Development, the Director shall take a decision in the matter expeditiously and at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation, after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard.
4. Pursuant thereto, former employees who were engaged on daily wage basis were re-inducted in service on ad hoc basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.6,000/- per mensem. Ext.P9 is the order issued in that regard by the Director, Institute of Human Resources Development on 17.6.2011. Nearly an year thereafter, the petitioner moved the Director, Institute of Human Resources Development by submitting Ext.P10 representation dated 9.4.2012 wherein he sought reinstatement in service. Two years later he submitted Ext.P11 representation dated 30.3.2014 once again requesting the Director, Institute of Human Resources Development to reinstate him in service. The instant writ petition was thereafter filed on 21.5.2014 seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on provisional basis as a Last Grade Servant at Technical Higher Secondary School, Varadium or some nearby institutions under the IHRD.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take a decision on Ext.P10 and P11 representations in the light of Exts.P8 and P9 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”
5. I heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.A.Muhammed, learned standing counsel appearing for the Institute of Human Resources Development. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not in service as on 14.11.2006. He had also not put in five years of service as on that date. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot claim the benefits flowing from Ext.P8 judgment. That apart, the petitioner was not engaged by the respondents after 15.8.2006. Nearly eight years have passed thereafter. If at this distance of time the respondents are directed to consider his claim for reinstatement on consolidated pay basis, it will result in large number of such stale claims being brought to this Court claiming similar treatment. The petitioner who did not seek any relief regarding continuance in service even on consolidated basis for the past nearly 8 years, cannot in my opinion, rely on the stand of the respondents reflected in Ext.P8 judgment and contend that he should also be given the benefit of the said judgment. In any case, as he did not admittedly have five years of service as on 14.11.2006, he cannot even on the merits, put forward a claim for continuance in service or reinstatement in service on an ad hoc basis.
I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, vps (JUDGE)