- (1.) ALL the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis, vide order dated 8th December 1994, with the stipulation that their services may be terminated any time, even prior to the expiry of three months. However, petitioners were allowed to work till June 1998. Petitioners were not paid their wages, therefore, petitioners had earlier filed C.W.J.C. No.3757 of 1997(R), which was disposed of vide order dated 19.07.1999. This Court, in the order dated 19.07.1999, has observed as under: "Having regard to the fact that the appointment of the petitioners was purely temporary in nature, no mandamus can be issued by this Court, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners. " Petitioners, vide representation dated 26.08.1999, have requested the respondents to allow them to work and to regularise their services, however, the representation was rejected by the then Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur vide order dated 28.09.1999. It seems that thereafter, petitioners have filed W.P.(S) No.6050 of 2002 before this Court, wherein vide order dated 23.06.2005, Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur was directed to reconsider the matter. Thereafter, impugned order dated 26.07.2005 was passed rejecting the representation of the petitioners, seeking permission to work and regularisation of their services. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that findings of the Deputy Commissioner, in the impugned order, to the effect that reservation policy was not followed while granting appointment to the petitioners, is perverse and without any basis. Undisputedly, petitioners were appointed initially for three months purely on temporary basis, with the condition that their services can be terminated at any time, even before expiry of three months. Perusal of the impugned order, reveals that while granting appointment to the petitioners, no selection committee was ever appointed and the then Deputy Commissioner has given appointment to the petitioner, without following the reservation policy and procedure provided for the appointment. This Court, in order dated 19.07.1999, has refused to issue the mandamus, in favour of the petitioners, commanding the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners. Moreover, order dated 19.07.1999 has attained finality. In the firm opinion of this Court, writ of mandamus can be issued, only when, there is legal rights in favour of the petitioners and the respondents- authorities are not acting as per the law. Since, petitioners were given appointment for three months purely on temporary basis, therefore, petitioners have absolutely no right to claim regularisation. There is no valid reason to take contrary view, to the view, taken by this Court in the Order dated 10.07.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No.3757 of 1997 (R). Present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.;