Important Point - Appointments made though placement agency go completely against the ethos of the Constitution.

1. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Kushal Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Govt. Counsel Advocate accepts notices on behalf of all the respondents.

2. Heard both the Counsel.

3. Counsel for the petitioners states that the appointment of the petitioners was done through placement agency and now the State Government has issued directions of withdrawing work from the placement agency at 10 Primary Health Centres while at other Primary Health Centres, the work is being done through placement agency.

4. Taking into consideration the submission of the learned Counsel and also in view of law laid down by this Court in Mooli Devi Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2010 (4) WLC 334 that there shall be no appointment through placement agency, the Court while answering question No.6, has held as under : -

“(vi) Question No.6 is answered to negative and it is held that fixed term contract of service for the teachers in SSA or KGBV Projects on year to year basis by different placement agencies with no assured continuity of employment is not justified, nor it is a legally sustainable practice.”

5. Considering that petitioners were appointed through placement agency, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as the action of appointing through placement agency has been held to be illegal and unjustified. However, taking into consideration that the respondents are continuing to appoint persons through placement agency and several cases have come up before this Court where petitions have been filed challenging the action of the respondents in dispensing with their services and appointing another persons through placement agency.

6. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others: (2006)4 SCC 1 it has been held by the Apex Court in Para No.44, 45 & 49 of its judgment as under:-

“44. The concept of 'equal pay for equal work' is different from the concept of conferring permanency on those who have been appointed on ad hoc basis, temporary basis, or based on no process of selection as envisaged by the Rules. This Court has in various decisions applied the principle of equal pay for equal work and has laid down the parameters for the application of that principle. The decisions are rested on the concept of equality enshrined in our Constitution in the light of the directive principles in that behalf. But the acceptance of that principle cannot lead to a position where the court could direct that appointments made without following the due procedure established by law, be deemed permanent or issue directions to treat them as permanent. Doing so, would be negation of the principle of equality of opportunity. The power to make an order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before this Court, would not normally be used for giving the go-by to the procedure established by law in the matter of public employment. Take the situation arising in the cases before us from the State of Karnataka. Therein, after the Dharwad decision, the Government had issued repeated directions and mandatory orders that no temporary or ad hoc employment or engagement be given. Some of the authorities and departments had ignored those directions or defied those directions and had continued to give employment, specifically interdicted by the orders issued by the executive. Some of the appointing officers have even been punished for their defiance. It would not be just or proper to pass an order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution or in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India permitting those persons engaged, to be absorbed or to be made permanent, based on their appointments or engagements. Complete justice would be justice according to law and though it would be open to this Court to mould the relief, this Court would not grant a relief which would amount to perpetuating an illegality.

45. While direct