- (1.) THE grievance projected by the petitioners in all these petitions is more or less identical. All the petitioners are the employees of the Avas Vikas Sansthan (for short AVS). Before dealing with the controversy raised in the writ petitions few background facts are necessary to be incorporated.
(2.) IN the year 1988 National Housing Policy was placed before the Parliament, where it was recommended to establish building centres in different parts of the country. The decision/guidelines were circulated to all the Chief Secretaries of the States on August 12, 1988. The State of Rajasthan issued a direction to the Rajasthan Housing Board to implement the centrally sponsored scheme for establishment of building centres. A decision was taken in its 139th meeting of the Rajasthan Housing Board (in short the RHB) to set up building centres and it was decided to form a separate society in the name of Avas Vikas Sansthan (AVS). The scheme was formulated by the RHB in collaboration with Housing Urban Development Corporation (in short HUDCO) and AVS came to be registered with the Registrar Societies on November 17, 1988. On June 13, 1989 a direction was issued by the RHB that it has created a separate body in the name of AVS and land measuring 3 acres will be allotted to its building centres by the RHB itself. It was stated that AVS was established for fulfilling the objects of the RHB. The Deputy Secretary to Urban Development and Housing Department issued an order on March 16/17, 1989 wherein administrative sanction of the State Government was conveyed for establishment of building centres at 8 different places. In its 147th meeting the RHB took following four decisions in regard to affairs of AVS: (1) The expenditure of Secretary of AVS was to be borne by RHB. (2) The land required for building centres at AVS were to be made available by RHB free of cost. (3) The financial aid was to be given by the Rajasthan Housing Board to the AVS. (4) The appointment of two directors of two building centres initially at Jaipur by the RHB. After the establishment of AVS, initially employees of the RHB were sent on deputation and the AVS started making recruitment to the different posts from the year 1989. The AVS published seniority list of all cadres including technical cadre from time to time. In the year 1993 Avas Vikas Sansthan Employees Service Regulations 1993 (in short the Service Regulations) were promulgated. The AVS further framed Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1993). Chapter 3 of the said Regulations deals with the appointments and prescribed minimum conditions which are required to be fulfilled by the employees. All the petitioners while working satisfactorily, they came across an order dated March 15, 1999 issued by the Secretary to the Urban Development and Housing to the Housing Commissioner RHB Jaipur that after considering the financial and administrative position of AVS a decision was taken to dissolve it with immediate effect. The said decision was taken in view of Sec. 60 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 (for short the 1970 Act) by the State Government and direction was issued to RHB. The petitioners came to know that a decision with regard to employees was also taken to adjust/absorb them on priority basis in Municipal Councils, Jaipur Development. Authority and other Local Self Government Department. Thereafter the Special General Body Meeting of AVS was held on March 26, 1999 and a decision to dissolve AVS was taken. The decision taken in the meeting dated March 26, 1999 clearly demonstrates that the services of the petitioners were terminated and a committee was authorised to consider the adjustment of the petitioners in the different departments of the State Government. The petitioners have approached with the common prayer that the RHB be directed to treat the petitioners as its employer and to take them on suitable posts with all consequential benefits. Respondents be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners and if any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, the same be quashed. Direction has also been sought in the alternative to declare the condition contained in the order dt. March 15, 1999 making absorption of the petitioners conditio-nal as illegal and it has been prayed that respondents be directed to absorb the petitio-ners on suitable posts with all consequential benefits of their past services and protec-tion of pay etc. Direction be also issued to the respondents to pay the unpaid salary to the petitioners and the respondents be further restrained from liquidating the property of AVS till claim of petitioners about salary, employment and absorption is settled.
(3.) THE State of Rajasthan in the reply raised preliminary objections. It was averred that AVS is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act. THE AVS is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the writ petition on behalf of the employees is not maintainable. THE petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy available under Sec. 76 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act. THE writ petitions involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the Rajasthan Avas Vikas (Conditions of Employees) Rules, 1993. As AVS was completely closed the services of the petitioners stood terminated. THE petitioners are not the surplus employees. Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 and Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 are not applicable to them and they cannot be absorbed in the Government Departments. However, the Government of Rajasthan took a benevolent decision purely on humanitarian ground to adjust the terminated employees of the dissolved AVS in Jaipur Development Authority, Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations and other Local Bodies. This policy decision of the Government cannot be a subject matter of writ petition. It was further pleaded that the decision to establish the AVS was not a decision of the State Government. THE AVS was basically a training centre for the qualified Engineers and was performing the work of construction in various projects awarded by the different institutions. THE AVS began running in losses and lost its object, hence the State Government in its General Supervisory capacity asked that the AVS may be dissolved so that the public money may not go waste and may be utilised in better manner. THE recommendations of the Government were made on March 15, 1999. The AVS in its Special General Body Meeting dated March 26, 1999 took independent decision to dissolve the AVS. On March 15, 1999 when the State Government made recommendations to dissolve the AVS, a beneficial decision was taken keeping in view of he larger interest of the society that the employees of the dissolved AVS who were permanent/substantive may be adjusted in JDA/Municipal Councils/Municipal Corporations and other Local Bodies on the lowest posts of direct recruitment against the vacancies which would become available on account of retirement after March 31, 1999. This benefit of the policy decision was not extended to the temporary/adhoc, casuals and daily wages employees. The employees of AVS have no legal and fundamental right to be appointed on preferential basis in the other departments. The decision of the State Government does not create any right to the petitioners and the writ petitions are not maintainable against the compassionate policy decision of the State Government. It was also stated in the reply that on June 1, 1999 the State Government took further decision to accommodate the employees of the AVS as per their financial conditions and requirements but they shall not get any pay protection and consequential benefits such as seniority etc. The State Government never took the decision to absorb the petitioners. The decision dated March 15, 1999 does not provide that the employees of AVS shall be treated as surplus. The petitioners have no right to claim salary from the State Government. It was further pleaded that screening in respect of the employees working in the AVS has already been made and ordered to appoint them in the various departments have also been issued and number of employees have accepted the reasonable offer. The offer of appointment and the undertaking that the writ petitions filed by such employees shall be withdrawn is in consonance with the principles of fair policy. The decision dated March 15, 1999 is just and reasonable and free from any extraneous consideration. It is in the larger interest and to save the agony of unemployment of the permanent/substantive employees working in the dissolved AVS. ;