1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2804/2007 Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :: 13 th October, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Rajvi, for the respondents. .... The Project Officer, Lok Jumbish Project, Bhopalgarh, issued a short term notice inviting tenders on 8.1.2002 for providing computer system alongwith computer operator on contract basis. In pursuant to the short term notice inviting tenders dated 8.1.2002 the petitioner submitted a bid on 18.1.2002 and that was accepted, accordingly, an agreement was executed on 1.2.2002 between the petitioner and the respondent Project Officer, Lok Jumbish Project, Bhopalgarh. In pursuant to the agreement arrived the petitioner provided computer system that includes Computer (Pentium-2), Floppy Drive (1.44 MB), Monitor 14/15” Colour, Printer with toner/Ribbon, U.P.S.-500 Volts with 15 minutes back up. The computer was also loaded with Windows-98 operating system and M.S. Office Professional Software. The petitioner himself was working as computer operator as a part of contract executed on 1.2.2002. 2 The respondents on 13.4.2007 issued a fresh notice inviting tenders for availing services of computer operator on contract basis. A challenge to the same is given by the petitioner on the count that he is already working as a computer operator, therefore, there is no need to engage an operator afresh on contract basis. With the allegation that an adhoc appointee cannot be replaced by another adhoc appointee, the petitioner has claimed protection under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that as a matter of fact the petitioner was never in their employment and he was working as computer operator after executing an agreement to provide computer system alongwith computer operator on contract basis. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed this petition for writ by considering himself an employee working on contract basis and also an employee working with the respondents in adhoc capacity. The assumption of the petitioner regarding his status is absolutely misconceived. The petitioner was working as computer operator with the respondents being supplied on contract basis alongwith a computer system. It is not in dispute that a short term notice inviting tenders 3 was issued by the respondents for availing services of the computer system alongwith a computer system. The petitioner admittedly submitted a bid in pursuant to the short term notice inviting tender referred above. The petitioner on 1.2.2002 executed a contract for providing computer system alongwith a computer operator. The relationship of master and servant is conspicuously absent in the instant matter. These facts clearly establishes that the petitioner was not in employment of the respondents. The services given by him arose out of a contract for providing computer system. In these circumstances, the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents want to replace an adhoc appointee by another adhoc appointee is absolutely ill founded and misconceived. The argument for violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India in the instant matter is not at all available to the petitioner. Being devoid of merit, this petition for writ is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.