Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri R.P.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. These three writ petitions involve common questions of facts and inter related legal issues, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, I have heard the same collectively and the same are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The leading writ petition No. 35304 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “first petition)” would be referred in extentio for the reasons that pleadings are complete in this writ petition while in other two, i.e. writ petition No. 36417 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “second petition”) and Writ Petition No. 50404 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “third petition”), the respondents though have filed counter-affidavit but the petitioners have not filed rejoinder-affidavits. It is, however, agreed between the parties that facts and document in all these petitions being common, the same may be read collectively in each other, as may be required.

4. In the first and second petitions, petitioners have challenged advertisement dated 24.2.2010 with a further mandamus that they should be allowed to continue on the post of Computer Operator/Date Entry Operator and as and when require, should also be considered for renewal of their term on the said post, while in third petition, matter relates to parity in pay.

First and Second Petitions

5. The dispute regarding continuance in service and entitlement of petitioners for renewal as also whether respondents are justified in proceeding for fresh recruitment by issuing advertisement dated 24.2.2010, is an issue involved in first and second petition, hence, in this regard, brief but relevant facts, may be stated as under:

6. The petitioners’ claim that they are continuously working since 2008-2009 i.e. date of their initial engagement. Even if their engagement was initially for a particular tenure, after lapse thereof, petitioners are entitled for continuance and cannot be replaced by another set of tenure appointments, hence, they are entitled for renewal and continuance. The central issue, which has to be adjudicated hereat,

(i) whether petitioners are entitled to seek a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to consider petitioners for renewal on their term, and

(ii) whether petitioners are entitled to continue so much so for that a writ of mandamus be issued to this effect.

7. In other words, whether respondents are guilty of violating any principle of law or alleged constitutional rights of petitioners by resorting to a fresh process of recruitment vide public advertisement dated 24.2.2010, is the moot question, calling upon this Court’s verdict in first and second petition.

8. Sri R.P.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners in first and second petition contends that petitioners having been working with the respondents since 2008-09 and onwards, their work and performance is satisfactory, their service has not been terminated so far, hence, respondents cannot proceed to hold a fresh selection by publishing advertisement dated 24.2.2010. The respondents cannot substitute adhoc employees by another set of ad hoc employees and in any case, so long as petitioners are not terminated, no fresh recruitment can be made on the posts on which petitioners are working. He also said that respondents are not considering application form of petitioners, which is wholly illegal.

9. Per contra, the case set up by respondents is that petitioners have not been appointed by them. They are not employees of respondents. They were employed by a private agency namely M/s. Laxmi Narain Gramodyog Samiti, with whom agreement was entered by Commissioner, Rural Development, for feeding of data under MIS, and in furtherance of that contract, petitioners were deployed by said private agency, for data feeding work. After termination of agreement with the said private agency, petitioners cannot claim any righ