A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a privatized government entity, and subsequent events may render the relief sought incapable of being granted.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or quo warranto or any other appropriate writ thereby commanding the respondents No.1 and 2 to not to transfer the services of the petitioners to private contractor i.e. AI SATS and maintain the status quo by setting aside the impugned directions issued by the respondent No.2 to the heads of all departments by way of message dated 16/08/2018 and 20/08/2018 as stated hereinabove.

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or quo warranto or any other appropriate writ thereby commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as permanent employees with all consequential benefits.

c. Such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents, in the interest of justice. Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents."

2. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows:

i. The respondent No. 2 issued a notification dated 23rd March 1999 for casual empanelment. Pursuant to the said notification, applications were invited for appointment of Casual Labourers against future requirement/vacancies in the unskilled categories.

ii. The due process of appointment was conducted and accordingly the petitioners were appointed between the year 2000 and 2004, and were deployed in the various departments of the respondent No 2.

iii. The petitioners had grievances regarding the regularisation of their employment as they were not yet awarded the status of permanent employees even though they have been working as Casual Labourers at the respondent No. 2 organization since the last 18 years. The petitioners pursuant to their grievances, made several representations before the respondent No. 2 on 26th April 2010, 9th August 2011 and 13th December 2011, addressing their grievances.

iv. In the year 2011, around 68 casual workers of the Centaur Hotel, Srinagar which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent No. 2, were regularised and thereafter, some of the Casual Labours who were initially appointed on compassionate ground were also regularised.

v. Emails dated 16th August 2017 and 20th August 2018 were sent by the respondent No. 2 stating the terms of transfer of the petitioners to different contractors.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the present Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents conveyed to the petitioners vide the e-mail communications dated 16th August 2017 and 20th August 2018 whereby, the petitioners were transferred from the services of the respondent No. 2 to a private contractor namely Air India Singapore Aviation Transport Services (hereinafter "AISATS"), and the request for regularization of petitioner's services as permanent employees with all consequential benefits was also declined by the respondent No. 2.

4. It is further submitted that the act of transferring the services of the petitioners to a private contractor which is a multinational company of Singapore is illegal, unwarranted and unconstitutional. It will lead to the exploitation of the workers.

5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhavnagar Municipality v. Alibhai Karimbhai & Ors., AIR 1977 S.C 1229, wherein it was held that status quo ante with regard to the employment has to be maintained even in case of daily rated workers demanding permanent status.

6. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 neither served any