SURESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were working in the Central ResearchInstitute for Yoga (respondent No. 2) and have challenged in this writ petitionthe action of the said Institute in not absorbing them inregular service.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 8/04/1981 as an Attendant by respondent No. 2 on daily wages w.e.f. 2/04/1981. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Sweeper vide order dated 29/10/1984 by the said Institute on daily wages. Similarly, petitionerNo. 3 was appninted on 19/01/1982 on daily wages as a Peon by thesaid Institute. It is the case of the petitioners, and this is not denied by therespondents, that the petitioners continued to work on daily wages till theirservices were ultimately terminated on 11/12/1987 after the filing ofthe present writ petition.

(3.) At the time when the petition was filed the grievance of. the petitioners was that the respondent-Institute advertised in the newspaper on 1/02/1987 a number of posts, including the posts of Poens and Sweeper.It appears that interview letters were issued, but one of the petitioners was.not even called for interview. The interviews were to be held on 7/12/1987. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent-Institute is a 'State'within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and as the petitionershave put in more than 240 days of work in a year, they are liable to be asborbed in regular service in view of the numerous decisions of the Supreme Court.