1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3755/1996 Radhey Shyam Yadav vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 18/3/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sandeep Saxena for the petitioner. Shri Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition was filed by the petitioner Radhey Shyam Yadav way back in 1996 aggrieved by discontinuation of his engagement as part time Electronic Teacher. It was prayed that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner as Electronic/Radio & T.V. Teacher with all the consequential benefits. In the writ petition, notice was issued to the respondents, but no interim order was passed. Shri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the petitioner was engaged, the respondents deliberately shown his appointment as part time basis, although he was discharging the duties like any other Teacher. Appointment of the petitioner was illegally discontinued under the garb of the letter dated 6.2.1992. 2 Name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Alwar and he was engaged by order dated 5.3.1990 till the end of the academic session and when the new session began, he was again engaged on 1st July, 1996. His appointment was extended from time to time and that result of the students whom he taught was also good. He was initially paid a sum of Rs.40/- per day and subsequently that amount was raised to Rs.80/- per day. It is therefore prayed that the action of the respondents in terminating his services be held to be arbitrary and they be directed to regularise him in service. Shri Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was part time Electronic Teacher appointed on contract basis and he was paid Rs.40/- per period, subject to maximum 200 hours for a subject, in which regard separate budget was allocated. The payment of his honorarium was made out of such sanctioned budget for teaching the maintenance of Video and Television. It was argued that petitioner was not paid Rs.40/- 3 per day, but he was paid on the basis of period assigned to the petitioner on a given date and his engagement was only on part time basis and not regular in nature, therefore, there is no question to continue him in service. Having regard to the facts of the case, I find that mere fact that name of the petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange, does not make his appointment as regular or substantive. Even the petitioner has not disputed that he was engaged on part time basis and was paid Rs.40/- per period though he at certain places in the writ petition has stated that he was paid the honorarium on per day basis. Given the nature of the appointment and the fact that he was discontinued way back in the year 1997, no relief possibly can be granted to the petitioner at this distance of time. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/