Dismissed

Dharmendra Singh and Ors. v. State Higher Education Depors

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2014CW/9306/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed three writ petitions filed by contract employees of a placement agency against a Government Engineering College. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Uma Devi, the judgment held that contractual employment rights lapse upon contract termination. The petitions were further dismissed for misuse of process, non-disclosure of earlier litigation, and misconduct via strike acti

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000 per petition to be paid to the college.

Dharmendra Singh and Ors. Vs State Higher… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR

¶3

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14.

¶4

PRESENT HON' BLE MS. JUSTI CE BELA M. TRI VEDI

¶5

Mr . K. C. Shar ma wi t h Mr . Ram Pr at ap Sai ni f or t he pet i t i oner s. Mr . Abhi nav Shar ma AAG wi t h Mr . Deven Par eek and Mr . Tanveer Ahmed f or t he r espondent s.

ORDER

BY THE COURT :

REPORTABLE

Al l t he t hr ee pet i t i ons wer e t agged t oget her , havi ng been f i l ed by t he same gr oup of t he pet i t i oner s agai nst t he same r espondent s i nvol vi ng same i ssues. They wer e hear d t oget her and ar e bei ng di sposed of by t hi s common or der .

¶10

At t he out set , i t i s r equi r ed t o be st at ed t hat t hese pet i t i ons f i l ed at t he i nst ance of

¶11

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 2

¶12

t he pet i t i oner s ar e not onl y vexaci ous l i t i gat i ons but t he pet i t i oner s have t aken t he cour t f or a r i de by f i l i ng t he pet i t i ons one af t er t he ot her , suppr essi ng mat er i al f act s, and have hel d t he r espondent s t o a r ansom under t he gar b of ex- par t e ad- i nt er i m or der s passed by t he cour t , whi ch shal l be demonst r at ed her ei naf t er .

¶13

I ni t i al l y one Suni l Kumar had f i l ed t he SBCWP NO. 9533/ 12, f or set t i ng asi de t he not i ce

¶14

i nvi t i ng t ender dat ed 7. 6. 12 by whi ch t he r espondent - col l ege had sought t o engage t he pl acement agency. I n t he sai d pet i t i on, t he coor di nat e bench of t hi s cour t passed t he f ol l owi ng or der on 10. 2. 14 : -

¶15

" The pet i t i on i s t her ef or e di sposed of di r ect i ng t he r espondent s t hat even i f t he pl acement agency appoi nt s any ot her per son, pr ef er ence shal l be gi ven t o t he pet i t i oner and t he al r eady exi st i ng cont r act ual empl oyees r at her t han avai l i ng t he ser vi ces of t he new cont r act ual empl oyees. I n ot her wor ds, t he pl acement agency shal l be under compul si on t o engage t hose who wer e al r eady engaged by t he r espondent s on t he same t er ms and condi t i ons i f t hey want t o avai l t he ser vi ces of Techni ci an or of any ot her post . "

¶16

Ther eaf t er t he pet i t i oner s Kai l ash Kumar and ot her 18 pet i t i oner s, who ar e al so t he pet i t i oner s i n t he pr esent pet i t i ons, had f i l ed t he SBCWP No. 6320/ 14 seeki ng di r ect i ons agai nst t he r espondent s i nt er al i a not t o t r eat t he ser vi ces of t he pet i t i oner s

¶17

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 3

¶18

under t he pl acement agency and t r eat t hem as t he as di r ect empl oyees. The sai d pet i t i on was di sposed of by t he coor di nat e bench vi de or der dat ed 14. 8. 14 di r ect i ng t he r espondent s t o consi der t he pet i t i oner s' gr i evances and f ur t her di r ect i ng t he r espondent s not t o subst i t ut e t he pet i t i oner s by anot her set of cont r act ual empl oyees. Ther eaf t er t he sai d pet i t i oner s of SBCWP No. 6320/ 14 al ongwi t h some ot her pet i t i oner s agai n f i l ed t he SBCWP

¶19

No. 9306/ 14 seeki ng di r ect i ons agai nst t he r espondent s i nt er al i a t o al l ow t he

¶20

pet i t i oner s t o cont i nue on t hei r r espect i ve post s, and not t o r epl ace t hei r ser vi ces by anot her set of cont r act ual / dai l ywages / t empor ar y/ pl acement agency, and f ur t her t o t r eat t he pet i t i oner s as t he di r ect empl oyees of t he r espondent - col l ege. I t i s per t i nent t o not e t hat t he SBCWP No. 9306/ 14 was f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner s wi t hout di scl osi ng t he f i l i ng of ear l i er pet i t i on bei ng No. 6320/ 14. Not onl y t hat t he aver ment s and pr ayer s i n bot h t he pet i t i ons wer e ver bat i m t he same, except changi ng t he chr onol ogy of par agr aphs. I n t he sai d wr i t pet i t i on bei ng SBCWP No. 9306/ 14, whi l e i ssui ng t he not i ces t o t he r espondent s, t he coor di nat e bench passed f ol l owi ng expar t e ad- i nt er i m or der on 8. 9. 14: -

¶21

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 4

¶22

" I n t he meanwhi l e, i f t he r espondent s want t o avai l ser vi ces of any per son on any post hel d by t he pet i t i oner s, pr ef er ence shal l be gi ven t o t hem over any ot her new i ncumbent i nasmuch t hei r ser vi ces shal l not be r epl aced by any ot her cont r act ual / t empor ar y/ dai l y wager / ad hoc appoi nt ee on payment of consol i dat ed sal ar y/ dai l y wages. "

¶23

Pendi ng t he sai d wr i t pet i t i on bei ng SBCWP No. 9306/ 14, one Aj ay Mat hur , who was al so t he pet i t i oner i n SBCWP No. 9306/ 14 f i l ed t he SBCWP No. 12240/ 14 agai nst t he r espondent s seeki ng di r ect i on t o set asi de t he adver t i sement dat ed 18. 10. 14 i ssued by t he r espondent Gover nment Engi neer i ng Col l ege and f or r est r ai ni ng t he r espondent s f r om appoi nt i ng t he new empl oyees i n l i eu of t he ol d empl oyees, i n vi ew of t he or der dat ed 10. 2. 14 passed by t he cour t i n SBCWP No. 9533/ 12. I n t he sai d wr i t pet i t i on bei ng SBCWP No. 12240/ 14, t he coor di nat e bench di r ect ed t he counsel f or t he pet i t i oner t o suppl y t he copy of t he pet i t i on t o t he Add. Advocat e Gener al Mr . Abhi nav Shar ma and f ur t her passed t he ex- par t e or der t hat t he pet i t i oner shal l not be di scont i nued and shal l be al l owed t o cont i nue. Af t er passi ng of t he sai d or der , t he ot her pet i t i oner s who wer e al so t he pet i t i oner s i n SBCWP No. 9306/ 14 f i l ed anot her pet i t i on bei ng SBCWP No. 13013/ 14 seeki ng t he same r el i ef as pr ayed f or by t he pet i t i oner s i n t he wr i t

¶24

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14.

¶25

¶26

pet i t i on bei ng SBCWP No. 12240/ 14. I n bot h t he pet i t i ons i . e. SBCWP No. 12240/ 14 and 13013/ 14, t he pet i t i oner s had not ment i oned t he f act of t hei r f i l i ng t he ear l i er wr i t pet i t i on bei ng SBCWP No. 9306/ 14.

¶27

I n al l t hese pet i t i ons, t he r epl i es have been f i l ed on behal f of t he r espondent - Gover nment Engi neer i ng Col l ege, Jhal awar , r ai si ng pr el i mi nar y obj ect i ons as t o t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y of t he pet i t i ons, hi ghl i ght i ng t he mi sconduct of t he pet i t i oner s as t o how t he pr ocess of l aw was mi sused, conceal i ng t he mat er i al f act s. The sai d r espondent has al so pl aced on r ecor d as t o how t he pet i t i oner s had di sr upt ed t he academi c at mospher e of t he col l ege by pr oceedi ng on st r i ke and hol di ng t he ent i r e col l ege t o a r ansom, under t he gar b of t he ex- par t e or der s passed by t he cour t f r om t i me t o t i me.

¶28

I t i s sought t o be submi t t ed by t he l ear ned counsel s Mr K. C. Shar ma and Mr . R. P. Sai ni f or t he pet i t i oner s t hat t he pet i t i oner s wer e wor ki ng wi t h t he r espondent s on di f f er ent post s si nce a l ong t i me and t hat t hough t he r espondent s col l ege had st ar t ed appoi nt i ng t he empl oyees t hr ough pl acement agency, t he pet i t i oner s wer e cont i nued on t hei r post s f r om t i me t o t i me. Accor di ng t o t he l ear ned

¶29

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 6

¶30

counsel s f or t he pet i t i oner s, t he r espondent - col l ege was payi ng huge amount t o t he pl acement agency ( i . e. t he r espondent No. 4 M/ s. Raj endr a Shar ma i n t he SBCWP No. 9306/ 14) , f or pr ovi di ng t he ser vi ces on cont r act ual basi s, depr i vi ng t he r i ght s of t he pet i t i oner s t o be cont i nued on t he per manent basi s. They f ur t her submi t t ed t hat t hough t he cour t had di r ect ed t he r espondent s not t o r epl ace t he ser vi ces of t he

¶31

pet i t i oner s by ot her cont r act ual / t empor ar y appoi nt ees, t he r espondent - col l ege had i ssued adver t i sement i nvi t i ng t he appl i cat i ons f r om t he r egi st er ed cont r act or s and pl acement agenci es. Rel yi ng upon t he deci si ons of Si ngl e Bench of t hi s cour t i n case of Suni l Kumar Vs. St at e of Raj . & Anr . ( supr a) , t hey submi t t ed t hat t he cour t had gi ven speci f i c di r ect i ons t o t he r espondent s t hat even i f t he pl acement agency appoi nt s any ot her per son, pr ef er ence shal l be gi ven t o t he pet i t i oner s, however , t he r espondent s j eopar di si ng t he r i ght s of t he empl oyees, ar e bent upon engagi ng anot her pl acement agency, whi ch shoul d not be per mi t t ed. They have al so r el i ed upon t he ot her deci si ons of t hi s cour t i n case of Radha Rani Vs. St at e of Raj . & Or s. deci ded on 4. 8. 11 i n SBCWP No. 7178/ 11 and ot her s, as al so t he or der passed by t he

¶32

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 7

¶33

cour t i n t he pet i t i on bei ng SBCWP No. 6320/ 14 f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner s t hemsel ves.

¶34

The l ear ned Addl . Advocat e Gener al Mr . Abhi nav Shar ma al ongwi t h Mr . Tanveer Ahmed appear i ng f or t he r espondent s however , vehement l y submi t t ed t hat t he pet i t i ons havi ng been f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner s gr ossl y mi susi ng t he pr ocess of l aw and suppr essi ng t he mat er i al f act s, t he same deser ve t o be di smi ssed wi t h exempl ar y cost s. They f ur t her submi t t ed t hat t her e bei ng di sput ed quest i ons of f act s i nvol ved i n t he pet i t i ons, and t he al t er nat i ve r emedy of appr oachi ng t he Labour Cour t bei ng avai l abl e t o t he pet i t i oner s, t he Hi gh Cour t shoul d not ent er t ai n t hese pet i t i ons. Assai l i ng t he ex- par t e or der s passed by t he coor di nat e bench i n t he pr esent pet i t i ons as wel l as i n t he ear l i er pet i t i ons f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner s, Mr . Shar ma submi t t ed t hat t he al l eged act i on of t he r espondent s, bei ng wi t hi n t he r eal m of cont r act , i t was not open f or t hi s cour t t o j udi ci al l y r evi ew t he deci si on of t he r espondent s, nor t he cour t shoul d have di r ect ed wi t hout gi vi ng oppor t uni t y of hear i ng t o t he r espondent s as t o whet her any ot her r easonabl e deci si on or cour se of act i on coul d have been t aken by t he r espondent s or not . I n t hi s r egar d Mr . Shar ma has r el i ed

¶35

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 8

¶36

upon t he deci si on of t he Apex Cour t i n case of Gr i dco Lt d. & Anr . Vs. Sadananda Dol oi & Or s. AI R 2012 SC 729 . Mr . Shar ma has al so pl aced heavy r el i ance on t he deci si on of t he Apex Cour t i n t he case of Secr et ar y, St at e of Kar nat aka Vs. Uma Devi & Or s. ( 2006) 4 SCC 1

¶37

t o submi t t hat t he cont r act ual appoi nt ment s come t o an end at t he end of t he cont r act .

¶38

Accor di ng t o Mr . Shar ma f or t he r espondent s, i n any case t he pet i t i oner s wer e t he empl oyees

¶39

of t he pl acement agency i . e. M/ s. Raj endr a Shar ma, t he r espondent No. 4, and t he sai d r espondnet No. 4 al so havi ng r ef used t o cont i nue t he cont r act wi t h t he r espondent - col l ege, t he cour t coul d not and shoul d not have compel l ed t he col l ege or t he new pl acement agency, whi ch mi ght be appoi nt ed by t he col l ege, t o cont i nue t he pet i t i oner s i n t he empl oyment , as di r ect ed i n SBCWP No. 9533/ 12, mor e par t i cul ar l y when t he

¶40

pet i t i oner s had spoi l ed t he ent i r e at mospher e of t he col l ege by goi ng on st r i ke and behavi ng l i ke hool i gans.

¶41

Havi ng r egar d t o t he submi ssi ons made by t he l ear ned counsel s f or t he par t i es and t o t he document s on t he r ecor d, t he undi sput ed f act s t hat emer ge ar e t hat t he pet i t i oner s wer e never empl oyed by t he r espondent - col l ege, but wer e t he empl oyees of t he pl acement agency

¶42

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 9

¶43

whi ch was engaged by t he r espondent - col l ege on cont r act ual basi s. I t appear s f r om t he r epl y f i l ed by t he r espondent - col l ege t hat t he r espondent - Govt . Engi neer i ng Col l ege i s a soci et y whi ch was r egi st er ed on 30. 6. 10 and pr i or t o t hat , t he col l ege was bei ng r un by t he soci at y r egi st er ed under t he soci et y gover ni ng t he Engi neer i ng Col l eges at Aj mer . The r espondent - col l ege i s gover ned by t he Execut i ve Counci l , whi ch had deci ded t o out sour ce t he ser vi ces of non- t eachi ng st af f t hr ough pl acement agency and accor di ngl y M/ s. Raj endr a Shar ma, a pl acement agency of Aj mer , who was al so pr ovi di ng ser vi ces t o t he er st whi l e col l ege, was engaged by t he r espondent - col l ege at Jhal awar . The agr eement wi t h t he sai d pl acement agency was cont i nued t i l l 2014, however , t he empl oyees of t he sai d agency i ncl udi ng t he pr esent pet i t i oner s went on st r i ke wi t h t he demand t hat t hey shoul d be gi ven per manent appoi nt ment s i n t he col l ege. I t i s al l eged by t he r espondent s t hat t he pet i t i oner s had hel d t he pr i pr i et or of t he sai d f i r m i . e. Mr . Raj endr a Shar ma as host age and t hr eat ened hi m of di r e consequences, i n r espect of whi ch t he sai d Raj endr a Shar ma had al so f i l ed a compl ai nt . The copy of t he sai d compl ai nt i s al so pl aced on t he r ecor d by t he r espondent s al ongwi t h t he r epl y as R- 2/ 9/ A

¶44

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 10

¶45

and R- 2/ 9/ 3. Agai n i n t he mont h of August 2014, t he pet i t i oner s and ot her empl oyees r esor t ed t o st r i ke i n a vi ol ent manner t hr eat eni ng t o st al l t he f unct i oni ng of t he col l ege. The Pr i nci pal of t he r espondent - col l ege, t her ef or e had wr i t t en l et t er s t o t he sai d pl acement agency M/ s. Raj endr a Shar ma and i n r esponse t her et o t he sai d pl acement agency r equest ed t he col l ege t o t er mi nat e hi s cont r act and engage t he ser vi ces of some

¶46

ot her agency. As t r anspi r i ng f r om t he r ecor d, t he r espondent - col l ege had al so r equest ed t he Gover nment , and accor di ngl y t he Joi nt Secr et ar y, Techni cal Educat i on had per mi t t ed t he col l ege t o make st opgap ar r angement s agai nst 39 sanct i oned post s vi de t he l et t er dat ed 19. 9. 14. The r espondent s under t he ci r cumst ances had publ i shed t he not i ce dat ed 18. 10. 14 i nvi t i ng t he t ender s f r om t he r egi st er ed cont r act or s.

¶47

I t i s ver y per t i nent t o not e t hat t he pet i t i oner s of SBCWP No. 9306/ 14 ( who ar e al so t he pet i t i oner s i n SBCWP No. 12240/ 14 and 13013/ 14) had not di scl osed about t he pendency of Wr i t Pet i t i on No. 6320/ 14 and had f i l ed t he sai d pet i t i on maki ng same aver ment s and seeki ng al most t he same pr ayer s, as sought i n SBCWP No. 6320/ 14, except changi ng t he chr onol ogy of par agr aphs, and t her ef or e

¶48

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 11

¶49

t he pet i t i on No. 9306/ 14 deser ves t o be di smi ssed on t hat gr ound al one. Even ot her wi se, on mer i t s al so t he pet i t i oner s have no l egs t o st and. I n t he sai d Wr i t Pet i t i on No. 9306/ 14, t he pet i t i oner s have pr ayed t o t r eat t hem as t he di r ect empl oyees of t he r espondent - col l ege and cont i nue t hem on t he r espect i ve post s, and t o di r ect t he r espondent s not t o r epl ace t hem by anot her set of cont r act ual empl oyees/ pl acement

¶50

agency. I N t he ot her t wo pet i t i ons al so t he pet i t i oner s have pr ayed t o r est r ai n t he

¶51

r espondent - col l ege f r om empl oyi ng new

¶52

empl oyees i n t hei r pl ace, i n vi ew of t he or der passed by t he Si ngl e Bench of t hi s cour t i n SBCWP No. 9533/ 12. I n t he opi ni on of t hi s cour t no such pr ayer s coul d be gr ant ed i n vi ew of t he posi t i on of l aw set t l ed by t he Apex Cour t i n cat ena of deci si ons.

¶53

The Apex Cour t i n t he case of Secr et ar y, St at e of Kar nat aka Vs. Uma Devi ( supr a) , has

¶54

cat egor i cal l y hel d t hat t he cont r act ual appoi nt ment comes t o an end at t he end of t he cont r act . The r el evant par a No. 43 i s r epr oduced as under : -

¶55

" Thus, i t i s cl ear t hat adher ence t o t he r ul e of equal i t y i n publ i c empl oyment i s a basi c f eat ur e of our Const i t ut i on and si nce t he r ul e of l aw i s t he cor e of our Const i t ut i on, a Cour t woul d cer t ai nl y be di sabl ed f r om passi ng an or der uphol di ng a vi ol at i on of Ar t i cl e 14 or i n or der i ng t he over l ooki ng of t he need t o compl y wi t h t he

¶56

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 12

¶57

r equi r ement s of Ar t i cl e 14 r ead wi t h Ar t i cl e 16 of t he Const i t ut i on. Ther ef or e, consi st ent wi t h t he scheme f or publ i c empl oyment , t hi s Cour t whi l e l ayi ng down t he l aw, has necessar i l y t o hol d t hat unl ess t he appoi nt ment i s i n t er ms of t he r el evant r ul es and af t er a pr oper compet i t i on among qual i f i ed per sons, t he same woul d not conf er any r i ght on t he appoi nt ee. I f i t i s a cont r act ual appoi nt ment , t he appoi nt ment comes t o an end at t he end of t he cont r act , i f i t wer e an engagement or appoi nt ment on dai l y wages or casual basi s, t he same woul d come t o an end when i t i s di scont i nued. Si mi l ar l y, a t empor ar y empl oyee coul d not cl ai m t o be made per manent on t he expi r y of hi s t er m of appoi nt ment . I t has al so t o be cl ar i f i ed t hat mer el y because a t empor ar y empl oyee or a casual wage wor ker i s cont i nued f or a t i me beyond t he t er m of hi s appoi nt ment , he woul d not be ent i t l ed t o be absor bed i n r egul ar ser vi ce or made per manent , mer el y on t he st r engt h of such cont i nuance, i f t he or i gi nal appoi nt ment was not made by f ol l owi ng a due pr ocess of sel ect i on as envi saged by t he r el evant r ul es. I t i s not open t o t he cour t t o pr event r egul ar r ecr ui t ment at t he i nst ance of t empor ar y empl oyees whose per i od of empl oyment has come t o an end or of ad hoc empl oyees who by t he ver y nat ur e of t hei r appoi nt ment , do not acqui r e any r i ght . Hi gh Cour t s act i ng under Ar t i cl e 226 of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a, shoul d not or di nar i l y i ssue di r ect i ons f or absor pt i on, r egul ar i zat i on, or per manent cont i nuance unl ess t he r ecr ui t ment i t sel f was made r egul ar l y and i n t er ms of t he const i t ut i onal scheme. Mer el y because, an empl oyee had cont i nued under cover of an or der of Cour t , whi ch we have descr i bed as ' l i t i gi ous empl oyment ' i n t he ear l i er par t of t he j udgment , he woul d not be ent i t l ed t o any r i ght t o be absor bed or made per manent i n t he ser vi ce. I n f act , i n such cases, t he Hi gh Cour t may not be j ust i f i ed i n i ssui ng i nt er i m di r ect i ons, si nce, af t er al l , i f ul t i mat el y t he empl oyee appr oachi ng i t i s f ound ent i t l ed t o r el i ef , i t may be possi bl e f or i t t o moul d t he r el i ef i n such a manner t hat ul t i mat el y no pr ej udi ce wi l l be caused t o hi m, wher eas an i nt er i m di r ect i on t o cont i nue hi s empl oyment woul d hol d up t he r egul ar pr ocedur e f or sel ect i on or i mpose on t he St at e t he bur den of payi ng an empl oyee who i s r eal l y not r equi r ed. The

¶58

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 13

¶59

cour t s must be car ef ul i n ensur i ng t hat t hey do not i nt er f er e undul y wi t h t he economi c ar r angement of i t s af f ai r s by t he St at e or i t s i nst r ument al i t i es or l end t hemsel ves t he i nst r ument s t o f aci l i t at e t he bypassi ng of t he const i t ut i onal and st at ut or y mandat es. "

¶60

I n t he i nst ant case, t he pet i t i oner s wer e never empl oyed by t he r espondent - col l ege, but wer e empl oyed by t he r espondent - pl acement agency whi ch agency was engaged by t he r espondent - col l ege on cont r act ual basi s. Hence i t coul d not be sai d t hat t he pet i t i oner s wer e appoi nt ed by t he r espondent - col l ege on cont r act ual basi s. That apar t , even as per t he af or esai d l egal posi t i on, t he per sons empl oyed on cont r act ual basi s woul d not have any r i ght over t he post s and t hei r

¶61

ser vi ces woul d come t o an end wi t h t he end of t he cont r act . The Const i t ut i onal Bench of t he Apex Cour t i n t he sai d deci si on of t he Secr et ar y, St at e of Kar nat aka Vs. Uma Devi ( supr a) had al so whi l e consi der i ng t he ear l i er j udgment s obseved i nt er al i a t hat t he appoi nt ment s made wi t hout f ol l owi ng t he due pr ocess or t he r ul es di d not conf er any r i ght on t he appoi nt ees and t he cour t s cannot di r ect t hei r absor pt i on or r egul ar i sat i on, or r e- engagement or maki ng t hem per manent , and t hat any deci si on r unni ng count er t o t he sai d deci si on ( i . e. of Uma Devi by t he Const i t ut i onal Bench) woul d st and denuded of

¶62

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 14

¶63

t hei r st at us as pr ecedent s. I n vi ew of t he speci f i c mandat e gi ven by t he Apex Cour t i n t he sai d deci si on of Uma Devi , t he pet i t i oner s cannot seek r el i ef t o cont i nue t hem or t o t r eat t hem as t he di r ect empl oyees of t he r espondent - col l ege, r el yi ng upon t he deci si ons of t he Si ngl e Bench of t hi s cour t .

¶64

The engagement of t he pet i t i oner s by t he pl acement agency do not conf er any r i ght on t he pet i t i oner s much l ess t he r i ght t o be

¶65

t r eat ed as t he di r ect empl oyees of t he r espondent - col l ege. I t i s al so ver y per t i nent t o not e t hat t he r espondent M/ s. Raj endr a Shar ma who had engaged t he pet i t i oner s and who was t he ear l i er pl acement agency engaged by t he r espondent - col l ege has al so r ef used t o cont i nue t he cont r act wi t h t he r espondent - col l ege, and under t he ci r cumst ances, t he r espondent - col l ege has no al t er nat i ve but t o engage t he new pl acement agency by way of st opgap ar r angement t i l l t he r egul ar post s ar e f i l l ed up by t he r egul ar r ecr ui t ment pr ocess. I t cannot be gai nsai d t hat t he r espondent - col l ege bei ng Gover nment Col l ege shoul d f i l l up t he post s by r egul ar empl oyment af t er f ol l owi ng t he due pr ocess of l aw, and i t shoul d not cont i nue t o engage t he pl acement agenci es on cont r act ual basi s, nonet hel ess t he pet i t i oner s cannot as a

¶66

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 15

¶67

mat t er of r i ght demand t hei r cont i nuat i on or per manence of empl oyment wi t h t he r espondent - col l ege as sought i n t he pr esent pet i t i ons. Though much r el i ance has been pl aced by t he pet i t i oner s on t he deci si i on of t he Si ngl e Bench of t hi s cour t i n t he case of Suni l Kumar Vs. St at e of Raj . ( supr a) , wher eby t he cour t had compel l ed t he pl acement agency t hat mi ght be engaged by t he r espondent - col l ege, t o cont i nue t he pet i t i oner s, t he sai d deci si n

¶68

l oses i t s si gni f i cance i n vi ew of t he l egal posi t i on set t l ed by t he Apex Cour t i n case of Secr et ar y, St at e of Kar nat aka Vs. Uma Devi & Or s. ( supr a) and ot her deci si ons. The Apex Cour t i n case of Gr i dco Lt d. & Anr Vs. Sadananda Dol oi & Or s. ( supr a) has al so r ei t er at ed t hat t he t er mi nat i on of cont r act ual empl oyment i n accor dance wi t h t he t er ms of t he cont r act i s per mi ssi bl e and t he empl oyee coul d not cl ai m any pr ot ect i on agai nst such t er mi nat i on, even when one of t he cont r act i ng par t i es happens t o be t he St at e. I t has been obser ved i n Par a 26 as under : -

¶69

" 26. A conspect us of t he pr onouncement s of t hi s cour t and t he devel opment of l aw over t he past f ew decades t hus show t hat t her e has been a not abl e shi f t f r om t he st at ed l egal posi t i on set t l ed i n ear l i er deci si ons, t hat t er mi nat i on of a cont r act ual empl oyment i n accor dance wi t h t he t er ms of t he cont r act was per mi ssi bl e and t he empl oyee coul d

¶70

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 16

¶71

cl ai m no pr ot ect i on agai nst such t er mi nat i on even when one of t he cont r act i ng par t i es happened t o be t he St at e. Remedy f or a br each of a cont r act ual condi t i on was al so by way of ci vi l act i on f or damages/ compensat i on. Wi t h t he devel opment of l aw r el at i ng t o j udi ci al r evi ew of admi ni st r at i ve act i ons, a wr i t Cour t can now exami ne t he val i di t y of a t er mi nat i on or der passed by publ i c aut hor i t y. I t i s no l onger open t o t he aut hor i t y passi ng t he or der t o ar gue t hat i t s act i on bei ng i n t he r eal m of cont r act i s not open t o j udi ci al r evi ew. A wr i t Cour t i s ent i t l ed t o j udi ci al l y r evi ew t he act i on and det er mi ne whet her t her e was any i l l egal i t y, per ver si t y, unr easonabl eness, unf ai r ness or i r r at i onal i t y t hat woul d vi t i at e t he act i on, no mat t er t he act i on i s i n t he r eal m of cont r act . Havi ng sai d t hat we must add t hat j udi ci al r evi ew cannot ext end t o t he Cour t act i ng as an appel l at e aut hor i t y si t t i ng i n j udgment over t he deci si on. The Cour t cannot si t i n t he ar m chai r of t he Admi ni st r at or t o deci de whet her a mor e r easonabl e deci si on or cour se of act i on coul d have been t aken i n t he ci r cumst ances. So l ong as t he act i on t aken by t he aut hor i t y i s not shown t o be vi t i at ed by t he i nf i r mi t i es r ef er r ed t o above and so l ong as t he act i on i s not demonst r abl y i n out r ageous def i ance of l ogi c, t he wr i t Cour t woul d do wel l t o r espect t he deci si on under chal l enge. "

¶72

I n vi ew of t he above st at ed f act ual and l egal posi t i on, t he cour t does not f i nd any mer i t s i n any of t he wr i t pet i t i ons, and r at her f i nds t hat t he pet i t i oner s had mi sused t he pr ocess of l aw by f i l i ng t he pet i t i ons one af t er t he ot her suppr essi ng mat er i al f act s, and t her ef or e t he pet i t i ons deser ve t o be di smi ssed wi t h cost , whi ch i s quant i f i ed at

¶73

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 9306/ 14, 12240/ 14 & 13013/ 14. 17

¶74

Rs. 5, 000/ - per pet i t i on. Al l t he wr i t pet i t i on st and di smi ssed wi t h cost s

¶75

accor di ngl y. The cost s shal l be pai d t o t he r espondent No. 3- col l ege.

¶76