(1.) By this common judgment, we are disposing of these Letters Patent Appeals as the learned Single Judge has also disposed of the writ petitions filed by the respective petitioners by the common judgment as the facts, circumstances and challenge as raised are common. The respondents are also common and the same.
(2.) The background of the appointment is to provide work on contract basis to the appellant/original claimant under the Government scheme known as "Training of Rural Youth For Self Employment" for short known as "TRYSEM". The object of the scheme is to provide an opportunity to the trainees to self employ themselves.
(3.) As there is interference in the concurrent finding given by the Courts below by the learned Single Judge in the petition filed by respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as statement on perversity agitated by the appellants, after hearing both the sides, we find that there is no perversity in the reversal order passed by the learned Single Judge. The order, in the background as referred to above, is correct. The appointments of the appellants, as recorded, was pursuance to the scheme and that was on piece rate and contractual basis. There was no permanency assured or recorded. Admittedly, the work was provided whenever it is available. There is nothing mentioned in the orders of appointment to create any relationship of employer and employees as observed in the order passed by both the Courts below. In the background of the Scheme, there is no question of grant of reinstatement as ordered. The learned Single Judge, therefore, in our view is right in quashing and setting aside the order.