Point of Law : Re-engagement of the petitioners after the first contractual period was over will not amount to unfair practice.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Since the common issue is involved in the present writ petitions, the same are heard and decided analogously by the common judgment and order.

2. All the writ petitioners were appointed as Vidhyut Sahayak (Junior Engineers) in the respondent-Company on contractual basis/the petitioners have prayed for directions directing the respondent-Company to permanently appoint them on the post of Vidhyut Sahayak (Junior Engineers) and restrain the respondent-Company from relieving them from the service.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-Company had appointed them through the recruitment process, after issuance of advertisement on contractual basis and they could not have been relieved from service without prior notice.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were selected in the selection process conducted pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2010 and their contract was subsequently extended/renewed, establishes the fact that the petitioners are qualified for the selection/recruitment and there is no justification in terminating the service of the petitioners. It is submitted that an assurance was given by the respondent-Company that they were appointed after giving artificial break. It is further submitted that the respondents are adopting unfair practice. He has submitted that at regular interval, the respondents kept on engaging persons on contract basis even on the posts, which are vacant and thereby replacing the contract based employees by other contract based employees. Learned advocate also submitted that in giving the appointments to the candidates selected pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2010 i.e. from the common list, which was prepared on the basis of the selection process conducted pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2010, the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy and certain persons, whose names were below the petitioners in the selection list, have been given appointments as Vidhyut Sahayak, whereas some petitioners’ engagement on contract base was renewed/extended. It is also submitted that the petitioners possessed the qualification and they fulfilled the criteria prescribed by the respondents to the post in question. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Piara Singh and Others, AIR 1991 SC 2130 and has submitted that an ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee.

4.1 Thus, he has submitted that a specific project, for which the petitioners were engaged, has been continued and there was no occasion for the respondent-Company to terminate the petitioners form service.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave has submitted that it is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed on the contractual basis for 11 months and have accepted the conditions of the contract. He has submitted that condition No. 7 of the appointment letter specifically states that such appointment will not confer any right to them on the regular post of Junior Engineer and after the project work was over, all the petitioners were terminated. He has disputed the submission made by the learned advocate Mr. Nanavati with regard to continuation of the project.

5.1 While referring to the reply, he has submitted that though it cannot be denied that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Vidhyut Sahayak by the respondent-Company however, the same were contrary to the rules and merely because on the earlier occasion, an irregularity is committed the same would not give any right in favour of the petitioners for claiming the regular post of Vidhyut Sahayak since such post is required to be filled in as per General Standing Order No. 333. It is submitted that the issue of artificial break raised by the petitioner is incorrect inasmuch as when the project w