IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10185 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 16,2009 Seth Pal and others................................................... Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others............................................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. G.S.Thind, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the respondents. .... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.5.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, vide which their claim for regularisation of their services as Jail Wardens was rejected. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Jail Wardens on contractual basis for a fixed period of 89 days in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160. While appointing the petitioners to the post of Jail Warden, requisition had been sent to the Employment Exchange. The petitioners along with a large number of other persons applied for the post and after being subjected to physical test and interview they were appointed on different dates between April 1999 to November 2002. All the [ 2 ] C.W.P. No. 10185 of 2008 petitioners were employed for 89 days on contractual basis. In January 2004, a jail break took place in Burail Jail, Chandigarh, as a result of which some dreaded terrorists escaped from the jail. After the jail break, the Chandigarh Administration decided to discontinue the services of semi- trained/untrained Jail Wardens who had been engaged on contractual basis. Therefore, advertisement was issued for filling up 21 posts of Male Wardens and 2 posts of Female Wardens on regular basis. The petitioners applied for the post. However, none of them were found fit enough to be selected. The petitioners had also filed representations to the Department for regularisation of their services which have also been dismissed. The petitioners preferred an OA before the Tribunal which was rejected on the ground that as their appointments were on contractual basis, hence, they have no right to claim regularisation of their services. The petitioners have prayed that as they have been discharging their duties as Jail Wardens to the satisfaction of their superiors, hence, their services are liable to be regularised. The right of persons appointed on contractual basis has been considered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi & Others JT 2006 (4) SC 420 wherein it has been held that if the contractual appointees have not been initially appointed on regular basis as per Recruitment Rules than they have no right to claim regularisation. In the present case, all the petitioners were appointed for a period of 89 days on contractual basis and, hence, they have no right to claim regularisation of their services. Apart from the above, after the infamous jail break in January 2004 in which some dreaded terrorists had escaped from jail, the Chandigarh Administration had decided to do away with the services of untrained/semi-trained Wardens. It was also decided that Ex-servicemen should be employed as Wardens on contractual basis for 89 days in Model Jail, Chandigarh, under the provisions of para 239 and 240 of the Punjab Jail Manual, 1996. Ex-servicemen are well trained disciplined persons from the Indian Army and they are obviously more adapt in rendering services as Jail Wardens. [ 3 ] C.W.P. No. 10185 of 2008 In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the judgment Annexure P-11 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE 16.3.2009 rupi