Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was filed by the six petitioners, namely, Parbat Singh Deora, Kartik Tak, Suresh Kumar Mali, Durg Singh, Allahrakh and Mohan Lal Devasi.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Harish Purohit submitted that the controversy in hand was covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Sahab Ram and anr. V/s. State of Rajasthan and ors. - SBCWP No. 2998/2011 decided on 10.10.2011, in which the learned Single Judge of this Court held that so long as long as project continues, the contractual employment of the petitioner may be continued subject to assessment of their performance and if it is found satisfactory. The relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge is quoted below for ready reference: Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to work on contract basis and after completion of every one year, on assessing their performance, if it is found that their work is satisfactory, then the term of petitioners' services may be extended from time to time till project exists. It is made clear that no appointment shall be made through placement agency because it is specifically mentioned in the guidelines that the application will be invited after advertising the vacancies in the local newspaper of the State. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that out of six petitioners, except the petitioner No. 5 - Allahrakh, remaining 5 petitioners have been continued in their contractual employment in pursuance of interim order passed by this Court dtd. 18.7.2012 which is quoted below for ready reference: In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioners as Senior T.B. Lab Supervisor/Lab Technician (STLS) if they are working satisfactorily and the Project concern is in currency.
(3.) HOWEVER , the petitioner No. 5 - Allahrakh was not so continued on the ground that his services were not satisfactory and an order was passed in his case vide order dtd. 22.8.2010, which has been challenged by way of separate writ petition no. 622/2013 - Allahrakh V/s. State. In view of remaining five petitioners having already been continued subject to the aforesaid condition, the present writ petition has become infructuous qua those 5 petitioners and the fate of the petitioner No. 5 would be abide by the orders in his writ petition No. 622/2013.;