(Per Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J.)

1. A short point of law covered by the judgment of the Apex Court is required to be considered in this Writ Petition.

2. The petitioners work in the Cadets Mess of the Armed Forces Medical College (AFMC). The college is run by the Central Government. It is fully funded by the Central Government. It has a residence hostel. The Mess is administered by a Mess Committee comprising the student s of the College. The mess is one of the facilities provided to the student s in the College Campus. The Mess Committee is the student s body comprising the Mess Secretary, Assistant Mess Secretary, Food Member and Property Member etc. who are nominated / elected by the student

3. There are no sanctioned posts for the student s mess. Hence, the student s themselves employ persons for the activities of the mess.

4. As per the list, Exhibit- A to the Petition, the petitioners work in capacity of Cashier, Billing Clerks, Clerks, Plate washers, Messengers, Waiters, Masalchi, Barbar and Office boy of the Mess.

5. The petitioners are not employed by the Government. There is no prescribed procedure for their appointment as Government Servant s. They cannot be classified as Class- IV employees.

6. It is contended by the petitioners that since the Medical College is run and funded by the Central Government and is the permanent establishment of the Central Government and the Mess is an integral part of the College, the petitioners must be confirmed in service. The petitioners claim to have put in long tenures of service in the Mess as shown in the list Exhibit- A. The petitioners claim that, since the mess 3 committee is funded by the Armed Forces. Medical College and substantial payment s are received by the College and the College has infrastructure like land and buildings, the petitioners must derive the benefits of permanency in service.

7. They claim that even employees such as watchmen and gardeners who are employed by the Government themselves in service are given full benefits, which have been denied to the petitioners, resulting in gross discrimination.

8. It is contended by the respondent s that the petitioners' nature of service is like that of the domestic servant s for the student s of the College, though the College is fully funded by the Central Government. The College is fully funded, but mess is not. The mess is therefore, delinked from the Government and the employees for the student s cannot be classified as Class IV (Group D) Government employees but are employees of the Student s' Body.

9. The petitioners have not shown that they have been employed by the Central Government. The petitioners have not produced any appointment letters. They have not shown any contract of service. They have not shown that the posts which they claim are sanctioned posts. Their permanency is only recommended by the Officers of the College.

10. The petitioners are, therefore, not Government employees. In fact they are not even temporary Government employees. Their original appointment was not made by following the due process of law envisaged by the rules applicable to the College run by the Central Government. Granting them regularisation, absorption, permanency or re- engagement would, therefore, be by a procedure not established by law. It would create another mode of public appointment viz: appointment by granting permanency of Government service to persons individually appointed. That would be back- door entry as against the settled procedure of appointment established by law.

11. The case of the petitioners is, therefore, fully covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi , (2006)4 SCC, 44.

12. The jurisprudence with regard to public employment in terms of the constitution scheme and considering the economic situation in the country after considering various judgment s has been enunciated in the case of Umadevi (supra). The judgment laid down the following dist