stating that it has proposed to appoint existing contract Coaches on regular basis, if they are recommended by Employment Exchange and satisfy all other criteria pertaining for regular appointment and the District Sports Offices were directed to get an undertaking from the Coaches. Accordingly, the petitioner executed an undertaking stating that he is willing to work as regular appointment Taekwondo Coach in SDAT. But instead of regularizing his service, he is being continued only as contract Coach and the respondents have appointed new Coaches on permanent basis without regularizing the contract Coaches, who have been working from 2004 onwards. While so, the first respondent had issued G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 04.07.2012 stating that 139 posts of Coaches have been sanctioned, in which 129 have been filled up with 51 permanent Coaches and 78 contract Coaches and 10 posts are to be filled up and it was also decided to sanction 80 additional posts on contract basis. As on December 2012, 20 regular posts were available and instead of regularizing the services of the petitioner, the respondents sought to recruit from outside. Therefore, the petitioner and 13 other similarly placed persons filed writ petitions seeking regularizing of their service from the date of appointment with all attendant benefits and also for interim injunction restraining the second respondent from terminating their services. In the said writ petitions, the second respondent had filed a counter affidavit stating that there is no proposal to terminate the petitioners from service. During the pendency of those writ petitions, the second respondent informed the petitioner and others that they would regularize their services, if the writ petitions are withdrawn. Acting upon the assurance from respondents, they withdrew the writ petitions with liberty to file fresh writ petitions, if necessary. Hoping that the respondents would abide by the proceedings in R.C.No.14304/AO-12006 dated 17.10.2007 and assurances, the petitioner had submitted the application. Now the petitioner came to know that the respondents would not act on the proceedings dated 17.10.2007, but proceed ahead with the recruitment process and therefore, came forward with this writ petition.
