IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 35046 of 2007(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S.TAURUS SECURITY SERVICE, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, LT.COL.(RTD) C.K.BABU, TAUSUS SECURITY SERVICES, 2ND FLOOR, IX/209, CIVIL LINE ROAD, PADAMUGAL, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI-682 021. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 066 2. BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD (BSNL) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER (TELECOM), BSNL BALAN K.NAIR ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 1. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN, SC, BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 35189 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 35046/2007 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 2112/SA/BSNL/EMP DT. 26/4/2001 BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. F. 269-2/2001/PERS IV DT.20/7/2001 BY BSNL HEAD OFFICE. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 28/11/2003 IN WPC NO. 27374/2003. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE REPORT NO. 8304003/SA/GEN/DRZS DT 18/4/06. EXT.P4A. COPY OF THE REPORT NO. 8419/EMP-1/2006/DSW DT. 22/12/2006. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 31/07/07 IN WPC NO. 31070/2006. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT DT. 10/10/07 IN WA NO. 2363/2007. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 24/11/2006 IN WP 31228/06. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. 2112/SA/BSNL/1091/1126/1248/EMP DT. 25/4/2003 OF THE R1. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO. GSB/1007/XIII/PF/2005-06/7 DT. 21/11/2005. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DT. 22/08/07 TO R2. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. GSB/1007/XIII/PF/2006-7 DT. 25/08/07 OF R2. EXT.P12. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 2112/SA/1126/EMP-4 DT. 11/10/2007 BY R1. EXT.P13. COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DT. 19/10/2007. EXT.P13A. COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DT. 26/10/2007. EXT.P14. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. GSB/1007/XIII/PF/2007-08/62 DT. 24/10/2007 BY R2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2A. COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 24/10/07. EXT.R2B. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DCR DT. 5/10/07. EXT.R2C. COPY OF THE REQUEST SENT TO THE DGR DT. 25/08/2007. EXT.R2D. COPY OF THE APPENDIX K FORWARDED TO THE DGR ALONG WITH THE REQUEST. True copy tga ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 35046 & 35189 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 20, 2008 JUDGMENT In these two writ petitions what is claimed is that the petitioners should be permitted to continue their arrangement for providing security guards for another two years in addition to the initial period of two years. Similar relief prayed for has been granted by this court and W.P.(C) 37352/07 is one such case. WP(C) 35046/07 2. When this writ petition came up today for orders, the standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that on the strength of an interim order, the petitioners are continuing and they have already sought for sponsorship of them. It is submitted that the petitioners will be permitted to continue for two years as sought for by them. Recording this submission the writ petition is closed. W.P.(C) 35189 of 2007 Though the petitioners in this writ petition are continuing on the strength of an interim order, the standing counsel submits that WP(C) 35046 & 35189 of 2007 Page numbers in view of certain complaints regarding the performance of the petitioners, they have not sought for re-sponsorship. It is submitted that their performance is unsatisfactory and there is no proposal to continue their services. If, as a matter of fact, the service of the petitioners is not satisfactory to the 2nd respondent, irrespective of the Government Orders enabling them to continue for four years, petitioners cannot assert any right to continue under the 2nd respondent. In the aforesaid circumstances I do not think that this court will be justified in requiring the respondents to retain them in service as prayed for by them. In view of the complaints that are pending against the petitioners, they are not entitled to continue. The writ petitions are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-