MAHIPAL MEENA & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.