JAGDISH BHALLA, J.

( 1 ) THE above mentioned first three writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos. 954 (SB) of 2002, 956 (SB) of 2002 and 953 (SB) of 2002 are identical in nature, hence they were connected and heard altogether. Later on Writ Petition No. 1372 (SB) of 2002 was filed. Learned counsel for both the parties stated that this writ petition may also be connected with Writ Petition No. 954 (SB) of 2002 as the controversy involved in this writ petition is similar to that involved in Writ petition No. 954 (SB) of 2002. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents Sri Ajit Kumar made a statement that the counter-affidavit filed in earlier writ petitions be read as counter-affidavit to this writ petition, i. e. . Writ Petition No. 1372 (SB) of 2002 as well. Accordingly, the judgment was reserved also in fourth writ petition.

( 2 ) WRIT Petition Nos. 954 (SB) of 2002, 956 (SB) of 2002 and 953 (SB) of 2002 are directed against the order dated 19th July, 2002, challenging the impending termination of the petitioners which had come into force and according to the terms of the contract entered between the parties, petitioners terms of employment as Junior Manager (System) had come to an end automatically after expiry of a period of three years from the date the contract was entered upon. Similarly, term of the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1372 (SB) of 2002, Arvind Kumar, had also come to an end on 15th September, 2002.

( 3 ) IN brief, the facts of the case are as under :

(1) Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 954 Rishi Kumar after completing his Master of Computer applications from HBTI, Kanpur, joined the respondent - organisation, opposite party No. 2 as junior Manager (Systems) on 19th July, 1999. (2) Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 956 (SB) of 2002, Kiran Pal Singh, after completing his master of Computer Applications in the year 1999 joined as Junior Manager (Systems) on 19th july, 1999. (3) Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 953 (SB) of 2002, Yatendra Bhushan after completing his b. Tech. in Computer Science and Engineering was selected for the post of Programmer under opposite party-organisation and he joined as Junior Manager (Systems) as Internal candidate on 17. 7. 1999. (4) Similarly, Arvind Kumar, petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1372 (SB) of 2002 after completing his B. Tech. in Computer Sciences and Engineering also joined as Junior Manager (Systems)under opposite party-organisation.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that although the petitioners were appointed on the fixed salary of Rs. 7,000, subsequently it was increased to Rs. 9,000, the Contributory provident Fund was also deducted from the salary of the petitioners since January, 2002. In continuation, it has been submitted that earlier there was a ban on making regular appointment. However, by Government order dated 17th June, 2002, the ban imposed was withdrawn. In light of the above lifting of ban, petitioners made several representations from time to time for their regularisation and further prayed that they be appointed on the regular basis. Great emphasis has been given on behalf of the petitioner that several other officers who were appointed on the contract basis by opposite party No. 2 have already been regularised, therefore, the petitioners also claims regularisation. The details of such representations have been indicated in all the respective writ petitions.

( 5 ) IT has been emphatically submitted on behalf of the petitioners that opposite party No. 2 being the instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India has violated Article 19 of the Constitution of India by offering unconscionable terms in contract of employment which are unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and in opposition of public policy. So, petitioners having no alternative had to accept such terms. One of such terms is automatic termination after the expiry of a period of three years. Such terms amount to bargain on the part of the instrumenta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document