Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7582/2016. "A. The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to serve continuously at their respective place of posting with regular salary; and B. The respondents may kindly be directed to pay the remuneration to the petitioners. C. The respondents may kindly be directed to continue the petitioners on the post of Computer Operator till the continuance of Sarthi Yojna; and D. impugned communication dated 06.05.2016 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and petitioner may be permitted to work. E. The respondents may kindly be directed not to replace the petitioners with the other set of employees; and F. The respondents may kindly be directed to pay outstanding remuneration to the petitioners with interest @ 18% p.a. thereon; and G. The respondents may kindly be directed to pay full salary to the petitioners; and H. The respondents may kindly be directed to not appoint informatics assistant in place of the petitioners. I. The respondents may kindly be directed to continue the petitioners in any project where post are lying vacant of computer operator. J. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner with cost of the petition."
(2.) Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Computer Operator Man with Machine and have been discharging their duties for more than 10 years. The extension of the yearly contract was being made by the respondents. The communication dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure-4) reflects that the respondents themselves were satisfied with the services of the petitioners and their necessity was recorded. The respondents also contemplated regularization of the services of the petitioner vide Annexure-9 . However, the respondents made a communication dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure-10) which sought to remove the petitioners from their services.
(3.) The respondents have submitted in their reply that the petitioners were contractual employees and they have entered the contract with an open eyes and thus, cannot seek any kind of continuance. The respondents have further pleaded in their reply that any kind of absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of the temporary contractual employment cannot be claim as any public employment dehors the constitutional scheme cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The respondents have also submitted that the very basis of the contractual appointment is the conditions on which the contract is made and admittedly it is a yearly contract and therefore, the respondents were not in a position to continue the same.;