H.L. Gokhale, C.J.

Heard Ms.Pushpa Menon, learned counsel in support of this appeal.

Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned counsel appears for respondents 1 and 2. Mr.G.Jaganathan, learned Central Government Counsel appears for respondents 3 and 4. Mr.K.F.Manavalan, learned counsel appears for respondent no.5. Mr.R.Arumugam, learned counsel appears for respondent no.6. Ms.D.Nagasaila, learned counsel appears for respondent no.7 and Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appears for respondent No.8.

2. This appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a learned single Judge dated 22nd April, 2009 whereby the writ petition No.23934 of 2008 filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned single Judge.

3. The appellant is a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking specially constituted for the employment of Ex-servicemen. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant ought to have the priority/exclusive rights in the matter of employment of Exservicemen, wherever the appellant has been functioning satisfactorily, and where more than 100 Ex-servicemen are required. The orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, i.e., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, ‘BSNL’) and its General Manager at Erode dated 8th September, 2008 distributing the work of engaging the Ex-servicemen amongst the appellant and two other agencies i.e., respondents 5 and 6, were challenged by the appellant by filing the above referred to writ petition. Those orders have been upheld by the learned single Judge. Hence, this appeal.

4. The appellant Corporation was created by the State of Tamil Nadu by the Government Order bearing G.O.Ms.No.889, Public (Ex-Servicemen) Department, dated 7th May, 1985. The case of the appellant is that there are certain directions issued by the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises and BSNL itself which give preference to the employment of Ex-servicemen through State run Corporations such as the appellant, and guidelines of the Director General of Resettlement (for short ‘the DGR’), an officer of the Ministry of Defence as well as the impugned order of respondent no.2 will have to be read in the light of these superior documents.

5 (i) It is the case of the appellant that under the directions issued by the Ministry of Defence on 22nd May, 2002, each Agency engaged in sponsorship of Ex-servicemen is supposed to be sponsored initially for a period of two years as per para 14(c) of the guidelines issued by the DGR with further re-sponsoring for two years in the event of satisfactory performance. This letter of the Government of India, however, deals with the State Corporation separately. It reads as follows: -

“ Government of India, Ministry of Defence,

Dte Gen Resettlement,

West Block-IV,

R.K.Puram,

New Delhi – 110 066.

No.2112/SA/BSNL/Emp 22 May, 2002

Mr.G.L.Sethi,

AGM (Admn.)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Office of the Chief General Manager,

Punjab Circle, Chandigarh

SPONSORSHIP OF SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES

1.Reference your letter No.Staff/P-48/Conf/II/82 dated 24. 2002.

2.As per Sub-Para(c) of Para 14 of DGR Guidelines, initially an agency is sponsored for two years. On recommendation of the Principal Employer, the same agency is responsored for another two years provided its performance is satisfactory and there is nothing outstanding against the agency. In case of state run Ex-servicemen Corportions such as UP Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited, Tamil Nadu Ex-servicemen Corporation, Himachal Pradesh Ex-servicemen Corporation, Punjab Ex-servicemen Corporation, the agencies can continue to work in the PSUs where deployment of security guards is more than 100 and they obtain satisfactory performance certificate from the PSUs

-sd-

(D.K.Tripathi), Lt.Col. Dy.Director (EMP) For DGR”

Thus, as far as these State Sponsored Agencies are concerned, they can continue beyond four years.

(ii) In continuation of this circular, there is a further letter of the Ministry of Defence, dated 15th September, 2005 stating that as f