IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No.3000/2008(OA 247/1996) Date of Decision: 11.05.2009. Anil Kumar. Versus H.P. Housing Board and Others. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting4? For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. S.S. Sood, Advocate, vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondent No. 3. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed that he may be held to be in continuous service as Clerk w.e.f. 6.8.1989 and be regularized as such. The petitioner vide order dated 6th August, 1989 (Annexure A-1) was posted in the Office of Assistant Engineer, (E), H.P. Housing Board, Sub-Division, Parwanoo against the vacant post of work charged Clerk purely on temporary basis. Thereafter, as is evident from letters dated 25th July, 1981, 5th April, 1999, 20th August, 2002 and 30th July, 2003 placed on record during the course of hearing, the petitioner was posted to carry out the work of a Clerk. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? : 2 : In the reply, the respondents have clarified that the petitioner was temporarily adjusted under the work of Water Supply Scheme at Parwanoo, as no vacant post of work charged Water Supply Clerk was available. The services of the petitioner cannot be permitted to be absorbed as a Clerk for the reason that his employment is not on regular basis. The examples given of S/Shri Harikrishan Sharma and Desh Raj Sharma are distinguishable for the reason that these persons were allowed encadrement as they were regular employees and not temporarily placed unlike the petitioner. Place of posting and nature of work to be given to an employee is purely the prerogative of the employer. This of course has to be within the frame work of law. The petitioner has got no legally enforceable right either to get absorbed or appointed as a Clerk on regular basis as this is to be done only in accordance with law. How in law/rules, the petitioner’s right has been infringed, has not been pointed out in the Court. Hence, no legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. No other point urged. The petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Karol) Judge. May 11th, 2009. Bhupender