RITU BAHRI,J. - (1.) The petitioners are seeking writ of certiorari to quash the practice of respondent no.3 - Army Institute of Law, Mohali to relieve the petitioners every year for 7 days and reappoint them on their respective posts after interviewing them. Further prayer in the writ is the petitioners be allowed to continue till regular appointments are made and grant them minimum scale prescribed for their respective posts as is granted to the regular staff doing same nature of work against the posts in question.
(2.) Managing Committee, Army Institute of Law, Mohali - respondent no.3 advertised the posts from time to time for appointment of non -teaching staff on the basis of their need on daily wage basis and thereafter on contract basis. The petitioners participated in the interview for the respective posts and they were issued appointment letter (Annexures P -1 to P -8) collectively. The petitioners made a request to respondent no.3 for giving them minimum pay scale and security of service by keeping them in service till regular appointments were made without giving any break. Thereafter, respondent no.3 issued an advertisement (Annexure P -9) to fill up the posts on contract basis. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment in the case of Hargur Partap Singh vs. State of Punjab 2007 (13) SCC 292 (Annexure P -10), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court gave directions to the State to continue the contractual employees by giving them minimum of pay scale till the regular appointments are made. Reference has also been made to a judgment passed by a Co -ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shivkesh and others vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 13555 of 2013) decided on 2.7.2013 (Annexure P -11), whereby the appointment of Canal Patwaris on contract basis was directed to continue till such time as regular recruitment was made. A cost of Rs.10,000/ - was imposed upon the Government for having forced the petitioners to approach this Court. Counsel for the petitioners has also referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of Major and others vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 1504 of 2010) decided on January 29, 2010 (Annexure P -12), where the petitioners were working on their respective posts on contract basis. It was held that the respondents cannot be permitted to replace the petitioners to substitute them by similar arrangements. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents that the petitioners be not replaced by similar contractual arrangements. However, the respondents were given liberty to make appointment on regular substantive basis by following the appropriate procedure under law. Finally he has referred to the judgment in the case of Dr. Anil Khurana vs. Maharshi Daya Nand University, Rohtak and others (CWP No. 13946 of 2004) decided on 3.9.2013 (Annexure P -13), wherein the petitioners, in terms of the judgment of Full Bench in Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab in CWP No.14796 of 2003 decided on 11.11.2011, were held entitled to the minimum of regular pay scales for the period of 3 years commencing prior to the institution of the writ petition till the date when their respective services were terminated. An LPA against the above said judgment has been dismissed on 21.11.2014 (Annexure P -14). However while dismissing the LPA, it was clarified that the minimum of the regular pay scale is to be given to daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts if they have been appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates.
(3.) The stand taken by Punjabi University, Patiala - respondent no.2, in the written statement is that respondent no.3 is affiliated to the Punjabi University, Patiala since the year 1999 and that neither any specific relief was claimed by the petitioners against respondent no.2 -University, nor any action of the respondent no.2 - University was challenged by the petitioners. The entire relief claimed by the petitioners was against respondent no. 3 and 4 only. Vide order dated 29.10.2015 the Army Welfare Education Society (Registered), Sector -68, Mohali was impleaded as respondent no.4. After being impleaded, written statement was filed by the Officiating Chairman, Army Welfare Education Society (Registered) taking a preliminary objection that the writ was not maintainable against private parties as respondent no.4 was a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide Registration Sr. No. S/13459 of 1983 dated 29.4.1983 (Annexure R -4/1) with the Registrar of Societies, Delhi Administration, Delhi. Respondent no.4 has no recourse to any public funds or grants and the entire expenditure on salaries and various other financial heads is borne by the society out of funds generated as fee from the students and therefore respondent no.4 cannot be defined as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Respondent no.4 is a private society/entity and all employments under the rules and regulations of the Society are term based and any action of respondent no.4 cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition. The petitioners have been appointed under Clause 130 of Volume -II of the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) which reads as under: RULES AND REGULATIONS VOLUME -II FOR ARMY INSTITUTES/COLLEGES (as amended): Article : 130 Adm Staff: - (c) Adm Staff in the colleges is employed on term basis on consolidated pay. (d) Services of group D staff will be outsourced to the extent feasible." ;