Contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contract employees; they can only be replaced by regularly selected employees.

JUDGMENT

D V S S Somayajulu, J. - This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who have recruited as "Retainers" in the Legal Department of the first respondent-company. They were recruited pursuant to an advertisement in September, 2014. The appointment orders were given to them on 20.12.2014 and the same were periodically extended from time to time. As the respondents recently published a fresh notice/advertisement on 09.12.2020 calling applications for the post of Assistant Manager (2 legal posts) on a contract basis, the present writ petition is filed questioning the said advertisement as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Paira Singh and others, (1992) 4 SCC 118. The consequential prayer is to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners.

2. The learned counsel for petitioner states that the facts are not in serious dispute. It is very clearly mentioned in the initial appointment dated 20.12.2014 itself that the petitioners were working on contract basis, which shall come to an end on the completion of the tenure. Clause 14 clearly mentions that the petitioners are not entitled to permanency of employment or for extension. However, the case of the petitioners is that they have faithfully discharged their duties from 2014 onwards till the filing of the writ petition. There was no complaint against their services and in fact it is argued that the General Manager has recommended their case for extension also on the ground that they have rendered good services. In the writ petition itself, case law is also mentioned. He argues that the fact that the contract was extended for years shows that the petitioner's services are beneficial / useful for the respondent. Therefore, the prayer is for regularization and to set aside the advertisement.

3. He submits that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Paira Singh's case (1 supra), one set of contract employees cannot be replaced by other set of contract employees. Relying upon the contents of the advertisement, learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners are doing the very same duty for which fresh applications are invited. He points out that the respondents again invited applications for "temporary appointment for a period of two years on a fixed term basis", which is contrary to law. According to him, once there is no difference in the scope of duties, the petitioners cannot be replaced by another set of temporary contract employees. Relying upon the work experience certificates given to the petitioners he points out that the description of the duties / responsibilities mentioned in the work experience certificate tally completely with the "detailed charter of duties of the legal department Appendix-G", which is a part of the new advertisement that has been issued. Therefore, he submits that for the very same set of duties, another pair of temporary employees are being recruited. Finally, he argues that as the initial appointment of the petitioners is correct and is pursuant to a public notice, they are entitled for regularization. The other aspects that are raised are that of the TA, DA etc., that is paid to the petitioners on par with the regular employees.

4. For the respondent Nos.1 and 2 Sri P.Rajashekhar, learned counsel appears and argues. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are appointed only on contractual basis. Therefore, he submits that they do not have a right to seek a Mandamus or to seek extension let alone regularization. According to him, they are not working in a sanctioned post. In addition, there is no regularization policy in the respondent organisation to grant relief to the petitioners. Apart from that he submits that the terms of the contract entered into between the parties are crystal clear. They are recruite