Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have filed the present set of petitions seeking direction against the respondent Corporation not to take any action on the office order dated 3/4/2014 by replacing the existing contractual persons with another set of contractual persons against the 200 vacant posts and prayed to regularize their services against the vacant posts. They have also sought to quash and set aside the notice inviting tender/advertisement dated 27/5/2012 and to stop the E -Tendering process started by the respondent Corporation.
(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the facts of petition No. 6888 of 2014 are taken. As per the averments made in the said petition, the petitioners were appointed as Security Guards during the period 2002 -2006 as mentioned therein and are working with the respondent Corporation since then. According to them, the appointments of the petitioners were initially made through a Security Agency, namely, M/s. Super Ex -serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society, however they were working under the control of the respondent Corporation. It has been further stated that the respondents earlier had passed the orders for replacing the existing Guards working on contractual basis by another set of Guards on contractual basis, by issuing the Circular dated 4/2/2011, which was challenged by some of the petitioners, by filing the petitions being No. 6884/2011 and others. The said petitions were disposed of by the Court vide order dated 10/10/2011, whereby the Court directed the respondents not to replace the petitioners of those petitions by another set of contractual employees, however permitted the respondents to implement the order dated 4/2/2011 and subsequent order dated 1/4/2011 to engage the ex -servicemen. According to the petitioners, the respondent has now issued the office order dated 27/5/2014 for filling up 200 vacant posts of security guards by appointing Ex -servicemen on contractual basis with an intention to replace the petitioners and therefore, the petitions have been filed. The said petitions have been resisted by the respondents by filing the reply contending inter alia that the petitions having been filed only on apprehension, the same are premature and not maintainable in the eye of law. It has been further contended that the respondent Corporation had initiated the process of engaging 200 additional security guards possessing requisite qualification under the Rules, from Ex -servicemen Societies and the petitioners have no right to challenge the said order. It is also contended that the petitioners were not the employees of the Corporation, but were engaged by the placement agency for fixed tenure, whose employment being not in accordance with the Rules and Regulations, their services cannot be regularized in view of the law settled by the Apex Court in various decisions and more particularly in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi & Ors, : 2006(4) SCC 1.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel Ms. Neerja Khanna for the petitioners that the petitioners are working with the respondents since many years, though on contract basis, and therefore they are entitled to be regularized on their respective post of Security Guards in view of the settled legal position, more particularly in case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors, : (1992) 4 SCC 118. According to her, even as per the decisions in case of Umadevi (supra), and in case of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors, : (2010) 9 SCC 247, if the scheme for regularization has not been framed by the respondents, they should be directed to frame the scheme, and regularize the services of the petitioners. However, the learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that the petitioners are not the employees of the respondent Corporation and at the most they could be said to be employees of the placement agency, which was hired by the corporation. They further submitted that the present petitions having been filed merely on the apprehension that the respondents would discontinue the services of the placement agency, the petitions are not maintainable being premature. According to them, the petitioners having been appointed through placement agencies on contractual basis, their services would come to an end with the expiry of term of contract.;