JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioner’s case in brief is that he has obtained the electrical workman’s permit having passed ‘C’ Certificate Examination in the year 1992. The opp.party, Insti¬tute of Life Science being in need of electrician for looking after the maintenance of electrical fitting of the Institute conducted an interview and he got selected and appointed as electrician w.e.f. 14.11.1994 with an assurance that his service will be regularised after obtaining the approval for the post and till then the service of the petitioner would not be terminated. In the last part of 1996 in the month of October, 1996 in order to debar the petitioner’s legitimate claim for regularisation, he was terminated and in his place one Pramod Kumar Bastia was appointed by order dtd. 24.10.1996 as in Annexure-2. Since after 30.10.1996 the petitioner was not allowed to perform his duty. The petition¬er therefore claims and prays for a direction to the opp.parties to regularise his service as electrician of the Institute and quashing the order of termination. 2. The opp.parties have filed a counter affidavit denying the claim of the petitioner. It is specific stand of the opp.parties that the petitioner was never appointed but was given a job contract as an electrical contractor to look after the work of the Institute from 14.11.1994. The Institute has a number of electronic and electrical equipments and gadgets for the purpose of conducting experiments. There is a sanction post of Technician (Electrical/Electronics) which requires the qualification of 3 years Diploma in electronics, with 2 years work experience in electrical work. The petitioner does not have the said qualifica¬tion. However, after conducting the regular interview a person has been appointed to the said post. It is also averred that there is no sanction post of electrician in the Institute as alleged and that to manage the day to day electrical problems, the petitioner was engaged as a contractor he having electrical workman’s permit. 3. Shri Das, learned counsel appearing for the opp.parties referring to receipts in Annexures-C and D series submits that the receipts granted by the petitioner himself for various peri¬ods would indicate that he was working as a contractor and was being paid for labour charges for electrical repair works of the Institute. 3. Shri Das, learned counsel appearing for the opp.parties referring to receipts in Annexures-C and D series submits that the receipts granted by the petitioner himself for various peri¬ods would indicate that he was working as a contractor and was being paid for labour charges for electrical repair works of the Institute. It his contention that at no point of time the peti¬tioner was ever appointed against any particular post but was engaged as a contractor for doing electrical repairs and mainte¬nance. 4. In the writ petition no appointment order has been enclosed but reference has been made to Annexures-2 and 3 to contend that the order itself would show that the petitioner had joined the post. ‘A’ bare perusal of the Office Order dated 24.10.1996 (Annexure-2) indicate that one Pramod Kumar Bastia was required to look after the works of the Institute on contract basis in place of the petitioner Prakash Chandra Panda. However, by order dated 25.10.1996, the order engaging. Sri Bastia in place of petitioner was superseded and the petitioner again was engaged to look after the electrical works as usual until further orders. These Office orders do not reflect as to whether, he was appointed as an employee electrician but it appears, he was engaged on contract to look after the electrical repair and maintenance on remuneration. The receipts granted by the peti¬tioner on receiving payment as in Annexures-C and D series clear¬ly shows that the petitioner received, payment towards either for looking after the electrical work or towards labour charges for electrical repairs of the Institute on different months. The orders in Annexure-2 and 3 or the receipt granted by the peti¬tioner, therefore cannot and do not substantiate the case of the petitioner that he was employed by the institute as its employee in the pay roll but that he was being paid towards his labour charges for effecting repair work and maintenance of electrical fittings. No other document has been brought to our notice by which the petitioner was engaged in the institute as a paid casual employee as contended and therefore question of regulari¬sation of his employment does not arise. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ application and accordingly it is dismissed. In the circum¬stances, there shall be no order as to costs. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Application dismissed.