B. Amit Sthalekar, J.

The petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to take work from them in their respective trade and pay them regular monthly emoluments and also to consider them for absorption in permanent capacity. The petitioners are also challenging the order dated 4.9.2012 by which the services of the petitioners have been extended from 28.7.2012 upto 20.9.2012.

Briefly stated the facts are that an advertisement was issued on 5.4.2010 in the newspapers, wherein, applications were invited for appointment of 40 Cooks, 10 Barbers, 10 Dhobis and 15 Safai Karmchari for catering to the requirement of recruits undergoing training at the Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, Allahabad. As per the conditions of the advertisement, the petitioners were appointed on C-N Basis at the rate of Rs. 192/- per day to be paid to Cooks/Barbers/Dhobis and Rs. 169/- per day to Safai Karmachari. The candidates applying under the advertisement were required to be registered with the Employment Exchange. A selection was held and the petitioner Nos. 1-13 were selected for the post of Cook, petitioner Nos. 31-43 were selected for appointment as Barber, Petitioner Nos. 44-54 were selected for appointment as Dhobis while petitioner Nos. 55-61 were selected for appointment as Safai Karmachari. The appointment letters were issued between 10.5.2010 to 23.11.2010 and in pursuance thereof the petitioners were joined their respective posts.

It is further stated that from 21.9.2012, the respondents have stopped taking any work from the petitioners and the petitioners have been relieved from their duties without any written order of disengagement. Subsequently, an amended relief was added challenging the order dated 4.9.2012 by which the tenure of the petitioners was extended from 28.7.2012 to 20.9.2012. From a perusal of the appointment order dated 19.5.2010 filed as Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit, the petitioners were appointed initially on 10.5.2010 upto 6.8.2010 and thereafter the period was extended from time to time.

I have heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed in service through a process of selection after advertising the posts in question and therefore, the services could not have been terminated by an oral order. In any case, the petitioners were entitled to continue in service and to be considered for absorption and for regular salary since they had worked from May/November, 2010 till 21.9.2012. It is also contended that the services of the petitioners were extended after 89 days and that prior to dispensing of their services, no opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioners.

The contention of Sri Siddharth Khare further is that the petitioners have been replaced in service by temporary appointees which is wholly illegal inasmuch as one temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee.

Countering the submissions of Sri Siddharth Khare, the learned counsel for the respondents, Sri Krishna Agrawal submitted that the appointment of the petitioners was purely temporary and was confined only to those candidates who were registered with the Employment Exchange and therefore, the said advertisement was not an open advertisement inviting applications on an All India basis. Sri Krishna Agarwal further submitted that the petitioners were no doubt appointed through a process of selection in the ATC ( now 214 Battalion) but the petitioners were only appointed to cater to the requirement of the training centre 214 B( n) and they have not discharged any duty pertaining to armed training or recruits.

The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that after the disengagement of the petitioners, regular appointees from different Battalions have been appointed against the vacant posts of Cook, Barber, Dhobi and Safai Ka

Click Here to Read the rest of this document