SUDHANSHU DHULIA,J. - (1.) The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is all these writ petitions are common and hence these writ petitions are being decided by a common order.
(2.) In these three writ petitions, the petitioners are the employees of a State University i.e. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar (from hereinafter referred to as the "University"?). Their employment ostensibly is not a direct employment in the University as of now, but is through what is now, however, called a "resource provider"?. Since their initial appointment, many resource providers have changed hands, but the petitioners have continued to be employed in the same University in similar capacity. The University though disowns them as their employees and calls them the employees of the contractor or the service provider.
(3.) In all these petitions before this Court, the petitioners have been employed in the University continuously now for the last more than fifteen years. They claim regularization of their service. The University has declined this request and the main reason behind this denial is that the petitioners are simply not their employees.;