B. ANIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against an order dtd. 24/5/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.16440/2019 and 22920/2019 by which the writ petitions preferred by the appellants had been dismissed. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.

(2.) The appellants are the employees who were appointed in Border Security Force Institute of Technology, Bangalore established by the Border Security Force, Yelahanka, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institution') against teaching as well as non-teaching posts. The General Body Committee which runs the Institution passed a resolution by which it was decided that no fresh admissions to any streams for the academic year 2018-19 shall be done. The General Body also took a decision to issue notices for termination of the services of all the surplus staff of first year and second year of diploma in the Institutes at Tigri and Bangalore. In pursuance of the aforesaid regulations, orders dtd. 28/5/2018 and 5/3/2019 were passed by which services of the appellants were dispensed with on account of closure of the Institution run by the Border Security Force, Institute of Technology. The appellants challenged the aforesaid orders in writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, by an order dtd. 24/5/2021, inter alia took note of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of similarly situated employees in W.A.No.2741/2005 and held that the appellants are not entitled to relief of continuance in service. However, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the respondents to consider the case of the appellants in accordance with law subject to availability of vacancies. It was clarified that dismissal of the petition shall not come in the way of Union of India and the BSF in taking any decision in respect of the grievances of the appellants. Accordingly, the writ petitions preferred by the appellants were dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are qualified and the vacancies are available. It is further submitted that clause 8 of the orders of appointment of the appellants contain a stipulation that they are liable to be transferred to any of the Institutes in India and therefore, in the event of closure of the Institute where the appellants were employed inspite of termination of services of the appellants, they ought to have been transferred. It is also submitted that a Committee was constituted by the Inspector General, Border Security Force which recommended that the appellants are entitled to be continued in services and the Institution should not be closed. It is further submitted that without approval of AICTE, the Institution could not have been closed.