1. - The petitioners in all petitions have sought directions against the respondent Corporation to formulate the scheme for regularisation of drivers appointed on the contractual basis and to give them benefit of regular pay scale. The petitioners have also prayed for their regularisation on the post of Driver by treating them regular employees of the Corporation with all consequential benefits and further for restraining the respondents from replacing the services of the petitioners by another set of contractual/adhoc/temporary employees till their regularization.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10242 of 2014 are taken. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioners were appointed by the respondent Corporation at Vaishali Nagar Depot in the years 2010 and 2011 as stated in the petition, and according to them they worked with the RSRTC upto 31/9/2013, and thereafter were appointed by the respondent No.2-the Jaipur City Transport Services Limited, Jaipur and at present they are working under the control of said respondent through the placement agency. It is further averred that the respondent had issued an advertisement for the post of Drivers (Bus-Captain) and Conductor (Bus-co-Captain) on 18/12/2012, and some of the petitioners have also applied for the said posts pursuant to the said advertisement. However, since the petitioners were working on contractual basis for last many years, the respondents were under an obligation to take necessary steps for regularisation of their services. The petitioners also apprehended that they will be discontinued from the services and hence the petition has been filed.

3. The said petition has been resisted by the respondent Corporation by filing the preliminary objections contending interalia that in view of the land mark decision of Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the petitioners cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right. Even otherwise, the petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable and are premature, as they have filed the petitions only on the apprehension of termination of services by employer.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya with Ms. Neerja Khanna for the petitioners that the petitioners are working with the respondents since many years, though on contract basis through placement agency, and therefore their services are required to be regularised on their respective post of Drivers in view of the settled legal position, more particularly in case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors, (1992) 4 SCC 118 . According to them, even as per the decisions in case of Umadevi (supra), and in case of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors, (2010) 9 SCC 247 , if the scheme for regularisation has not been framed by the respondents, they should be directed to frame the scheme, and regularise the services of the petitioners. However, the learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that the petitioners are not the employees of the respondent Corporation and at the most they could be said to be the employees of the placement agency, which was hired by the corporation. They further submitted that the present petitions having been filed merely on the apprehension that the respondents would discontinue the services of the placement agency, the petitions are not maintainable being premature. According to them, the petitioners having been appointed through placement agencies on contractual basis, their services would come to an end with the expiry of term of contract.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the documents on record, it appears that the petitioners have not produced any document to show that they were either appointed by the respondent No.1-RSRTC or by the respondent No.2-JCTS. Apart from the fact that as per their own averments in the