IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5408 of 2009 Putul Kar, wife of Sri N.C. Kar, resident of Village-Salchura, P.O. Mantumra, District Bankura (W.B.) at present Quarter No.B-3/4 I.G.I.M.S. Campus, Sheikhpura, P.O. B.V. College, P.S. Shashtri Nagar, District Patna…………………………………………………………………………Petitioner Versus 1. Indira Gandhi Institute Of Medical Sciences through its Director, I.G.I.M.S. Sheikhpura, Patna-800014 2. The Director, Indira Gandhi Institute Of Medical Sciences (in short IGIMS) Sheikhpura, Patna-800014 3. The Chief Administrative Officer, IGIMS, Sheikhpura, Patna 4. The Head of the Department of Radiology, IGIMS Sheikhpura, Patna-800014………Respondents *** For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K.P. Singh, Advocate For IGIMS: Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate 3 16.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Respondent-Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science (hereinafter referred as ‘the Institute’) purchased a mammography machine from the SIEMENS Limited. Since there was no operator of the machine available in the Institute, the Institute made a request to the Company for deputing a person to operate the machine till a qualified person is appointed by the Institute itself. Petitioner was admittedly a temporary hand in the Company at that time. The Company deputed her in the - 2 - Institute in 2002 and since then she is continuing on deputation. Her grievance is that twice the post of operator of the machine was advertised but the Institute did not get a competent and eligible candidate for regular appointment on the post of Mammography Technician. The petitioner also appeared in the interview but as she did not had requisite educational qualification for the post, she was not selected. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the Institute did not get any eligible candidate for appointment on the post, she should have been considered for regularization on the post by the Institute. An alternative prayer has been made that she may be considered for regularization against the post of Dark Room Assistant for which she holds the eligibility. The matter of filling up the post is a matter which is squarely within the domain of the employer. If the petitioner would have qualified for the post which was advertised and the Institute failed to select her, she may have claimed for consideration of her case - 3 - as a matter of right. Admittedly, she did not had the requisite qualification for the post of Mammography Technician which post was advertised by the Institute twice. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the post of Dark Room Assistant was also advertised earlier but the petitioner at that time applied only for the post of Mammography Technician and not for the post of Dark Room Assistant. Therefore, it is apparent that as a matter of right, petitioner could not claim for consideration of her case for regular appointment against either of the posts by the Institute. So far as her regularization or absorption is concerned, the same has to be considered by the Institute in accordance with law for which this Court cannot issue any mandamus. The matter is, therefore, left open to the Institute to decide. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has continued in the Institute but she has not been paid her salary or remuneration for the work she had rendered or she is still rendering with the - 4 - Institute. This matter is to be examined by the authorities of the Institute who are required to see that the legitimate remuneration is paid to the petitioner for the work rendered by her. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. B.T. (J.N.Singh, J.)