@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashHeard both sides. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same person. In the first writ petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to regularise her service with all attendant benefits.
2. The petitioner was employed as a Lab Technician under the third respondent hospital. She was appointed initially for a period of one year with effect from 1.8.2002 to 31.7.2003 on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day subject to maximum of Rs. 1200/- per month. The petitioner has a certificate in Electro Cardiography Technology. She had completed Lab Technician course during the period 1998-1999. She also had Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology, AIDS Control Course from VCCTC, Department of Immunology, Stanley Medical College, Chennai.
3. The petitioner stated that each time her service was renewed. She was working for six working days in a week at the Group Centre Hospital. The petitioner was also sent for training in many places. She has been working for seven years without confirmation. With the amount of Rs. 2400/-, it was difficult to lead her life. Since she had continuously worked for more than 480 days, she was eligible for conferment of permanent status.
4. The writ petition was admitted on 25.2.2009. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim injunction on 20.3.2009 only on the ground that the Counsel for the respondents did not appear. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 20.4.2009.
5. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the second writ petition being W.P. No. 10973 of 2009. The petitioner''s appointment as a Lab Technician was cancelled by the impugned order, dated Nil (April, 2009). It is the cancellation of her appointment, the petitioner had challenged the same in the second writ petition. The petitioner has raised once again the very same ground including the ground that she was not allowed to continue in service despite an injunction order. The order was not a speaking order.
6. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have contended that the petitioner was engaged as a Laboratory Technician on non sanctioned post in the composite hospital of 40 bedded facility. On a resolution passed by the Station Welfare Committee, a temporary laboratory technician was engaged on a local arrangement as a welfare measure to facilitate the convenience of all serving personnel and their families. It was done on an honorarium basis. The Unit Personnel Welfare and Amenities Fund was used for meeting the expenditures. The petitioner was engaged as a Laboratory Technician for daily 3 hours for three days in a week. Each time, her engagement was terminated. Likewise, she was engaged for three hours for six days.
7. It was also stated that one Devasagayam, who was a regular Laboratory Technician was temporarily attached to the Composite Hospital, CRPF and he joined duty. Since a regular Laboratory Technician is being utilized, the service of the petitioner was no longer required. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit, it was further averred as follows:
8. I submit that the allegation made by the petitioner that she was not appointed on permanent basis holds no good, as the question of granting her permanent employment does not even arise here. Moreover, the enlistment/selection of Para-medical Staff are being done on all India basis by giving widespread advertisements in leading news papers and the regular appointments are done purely on merit on all India basis strictly as per Government of India orders after conducting required physical, written test and interviews etc. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be offered an appointment in CRPF just because of the fact that she was engaged as a part time Laboratory Technician in CRPF Hospital.
9. In once again reiterate that in view of non sanctioned post of Laboratory Technician in Composite Hospital of 40 bedded facilities, it was decided to engage a Laboratory Technician temporarily on a local arrangement as a welfare measure to facilitate convenience of all serving personnel and their families residing inside the Avadi Campus on Honararium basis. Thus, Hononarium @ Rs. 100/- per day subject to the maximum of Rs. 2400/- p.m. was paid to the petitioner by meeting the expenditure out of local arrangement viz., out of Unit personnel Welfare and Amenities Fund which is being shared equally by Group Centre/Recruits Training Centre/77 Bn out of contributions received from the personnel serving in the camp and not from the Government grant. Subsequently, the engagement of the petitioner was cancelled with effect from 18/03/2009 i.e. prior to the orders of interim injunction granted by the Hon''ble Court on WP No. 3250/2009 on 20/03/2009.
8. Though Ms. V.J. Latha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in
9. In the first writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the relief of regularisation. In the second writ petition, she had claimed that cancellation of her appointment was illegal. Both the attacks made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced because the petitioner is only an ad hoc appointee and was paid from the Special Funds kept for this purpose. When there was regular posting done, she has no place to continue.
10. In the light of the above, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs.
