HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.A. No. 636 of 2011 DATED: 26.08.2011 Between: M/s. Electronics Corpn of India Ltd. and two others .. Appellants And Mr.Bhaskara Rao & 56 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This is an appeal by the respondents in W.P.No.20088 of 2011 against an interlocutory order dated 09.08.2011 in W.P.M.P. No. 24341 of 2011 whereby the appellants were directed to continue the respondents-writ petitioners in service on existing terms and conditions while reserving liberty of the appellants to proceed with the selection in pursuance of Advertisement No.3 issued on 07.04.2011. The writ petitioners approached this Court in a second round of litigation having first instituted an application in the Central Administrative Tribunal wherein they obtained an interim order. The substantive application (O.A.) was however rejected on the point of jurisdiction. The writ petitioners were admittedly appointed as Fitters, Welders or Machinists on a three-year-contract pursuant to a Walk-in- Interview Advertisement issued in August, 2007. Though the tenure on which the 54 writ petitioners were appointed in the trades mentioned above, expired sometime in August/September, 2010; in the exigencies of work the appellants continued extending the tenure of the respondents from three to six months, details of which are not relevant or material for the purposes of adjudicating this appeal. The appellants also issued Advertisement No.3 on 07.04.2011 inviting applications from qualified candidates in various posts including Fitters, Welders and Machinists. This notification was for regular recruitment, and not a short tenure basis, but up to the age of superannuation, in accordance with the service regularizations of the appellants-Corporation. All the writ petitioners applied pursuant to the regular recruitment Notification dated 07.04.2011. The process of recruitment is in process. It is stated by Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellants that some of the writ petitioners though over-aged as per the specifications in the recruitment Notification, dated 07.04.2011, were considered for selection and appointment reckoning their past service in the appellants-Corporation. As the tenure of the writ petitioners was not further extended after the initial extension, and there was a threat of disengagement, they filed the writ petition. The impugned interim order is passed directing the appellants to continue the writ petitioners in service. The order is assailed on several grounds; a) that the writ petitioners failed to establish any right to continue in service; and b) there is no currently available work justifying continuance of the petitioners in service in the trades of Welder, Fitter and Machinist and the appellants being a Public Sector Corporation, it is contrary to public policy to continue the writ petitioners in service with attendant liability to payment of wages without any work to be rendered by them. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the substantive business pursued by the appellants-Corporation is project specific and recruitment in various trades is done on the basis of projects secured by the Corporation. At present, there are no works or projects justifying continuance of the petitioners, is the specific contention. Ms. G.Sudha, learned for the respondents-writ petitioners states that the appellants have a flawed administrative policy; a hire and fire policy of recruitment on tenure basis instead of regular recruitment. That there is need for permanent staff is illustrated by the regular recruitment Notification dated 07.04.2011; and in the circumstances the order under appeal is just and fair and not liable to be interfered with. From the facts and circumstances adverted to above, the petitioners were initially appointed on a specific tenure which has expired. No right for continuance in service is either pleaded or established. Since the claim of the appellants-Corporation that there is no current work justifying continuance of the petitioners is not controverted, we find no justification for directing the appellants to continue the writ petitioners in service on existing terms and conditions. The petitioners’ claim for absorption, on the basis of their earlier tenure with the appellants-Corporation, and adjudication of the issue whether the appellants’ policy of recruiting in various trades on short tenure basis is arbitrary, and if so, with what consequences, are issues to be adjudicated in the substantive writ petition. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners states that since the appellants-Corporation may notify a Walk-in-Interview whenever works are available, the writ petitioners may also be offered an opportunity to participate in such Walk-in-Interview. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, fairly states that in case any Walk-in-Interview for a specified tenure of appointment in the trades of Welder, Fitter and Machinist or other trades suitable to the petitioners’ skills and qualifications is advertised, the petitioners would be at liberty to apply, and in fact, the learned counsel has offered to send call letters to the petitioners, apart from the general advertisement. In the totality of circumstances, this offer by and on behalf of the appellants, appears just and equitable. For the aforesaid reasons and on the aforesaid analysis, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order under appeal directing the appellants to continue the writ petitioners in service on existing terms and conditions is set aside, and in case any future Walk-in-Interview is notified by the appellants-Corporation, the directions and observations above shall apply. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 26.08.2011 ___________________ bcj N. RAVI SHANKAR, J