V 402 1 4e x CHANDlGARH 1 CWP No 7358 of2010 DateofDecisionl 8A2011 MohinderSinghand another Petitioners Versus Tourism Ltd Tllrough its M 2 CWP No 1908of2010 RakamSingh ePetitioiler Versus m 0 Haryana Tourism Ltd Through its MD 0 0 3 CWP No 3451of2010 NareshKumar 8 others Petitioners 0 Versus 1 I Tourism Ltd Through itsM espondents Z 4 CWP No 3939of2010 BhoopSinghandanother vPetitioners CC Ct Versus I Tourism Ltd Through C3 its M19 Z 4r CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTJCE PERMOD KOHLI QO Presentl Mr Ashok SharmaNabhewalaAdvocate for lhe J Z Mr AjaiJain Advocate for the Om lk Ikl PERMOD KOHLI J ORAL The order dated 3S009 is common in all these The grounds of challenge andthe nature of grievance beingalso 1 similar all thesepetitions are being of bythis common order is a Govt controlled and thus falls within tlle puiviewof State under Article 12 of the andis amenablcto lhe wi1t of this Court A Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 29 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 403 1 r CWPNo 7358of2010 2 r Petitionersin thesewrit petitions were as Job Trainee Waiters Counter Trainee Kitchen HelpersKitchen Trainee etc All the possess of matricandaboveplusDiploma branchesof Hotel ManagementTheYWere ea8 betweentlle 111 1991 to 1993 as 111 variousbranchesin the herein above Theii engaement was through corporationas Written containing identicalconditions The terms of lr their engagement inter alia includea trainingperiodof2 yearsOom thedate 1 1 of joining for anothcr6 monthsin the event of failure to 5 the training paymentof Oxedstipendduringthe of trainingand rightof the manageinent to disengageif training1S 4 1 Anotllcr relevant containedin the W not found 1 letterreadsas underl of trainingit will nol be Oll 3 On ofthe management00Heryou ally 110r it will be lhe part on you to acceptany ili the You will howeverbe ofposton the ofyoursuccessl training Il It is common case of the parties lhat even thoughthe initlal however the petitioners continuedeven the periodand have worked between 7 to 8 years when their servlces were d with in the year 1998 Someofthe on Oleir and theywere takenbdck to servicefor a short whileand againrelievedfrom the duties Some of the alongwith 4 CWPN 2921 of 1998 titled as other situatedpersons flled Kuldeep Singhand othersVs State ofHaryana andothers Similarwrit d Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 29 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 404 CWPNo 7358of2010 3 J W flledbyvarious othersimilarlysituated Thiswrit petition was allowed vide dated 1 61999 and following directions were issuedl C4 6 In theresult thewrit petition is allowedand a direction issued to the to absorb 1 to 51 againstthe advertisedpostsif theyare for the same Thisdireclion will nol applyin the case of llO21who has slce withdrawnfromthe m case The will be at libertyto jill up the remainillgvacant Ct theopen marketas adlIertisedNo costs Il 0 Oled an LPA beingLPA No 866 of 1999 The O the Division Bench of tllis Court The Honble Division Bench C5 modified the with tloeconsenl of the paities The modiOed c directionsare as underl Z t pridice to the sland of Ihe on facts 44 Without m C in theappealbyconsen1 ofpartiesthe daled 4 is modijled to the extcnt that lhe wri pelitionvouldstandallowed 1 L3 anda direction issued to the Corporation to considerthe ubsorptlon 21 51agai7sltlle advertisedpostsif theyare eligiblefor Nol lO m thesame 4r In theabovetcrms theappealis disposed oj 4 Zl 301999 SdlmArun BeSaharya Chief JustlCCe Il One Virender who was also workingas a Job Trainee flled CWP No 8117 of 2001 The matter was consideredby the C Honble Full Bench of this Court andthe writ petition was allowedwith a directionto the to takebackthe in service on thepostthat he was at the time when he was relievedon the that he was gettingA further directionwas issuedfor same ofback wagesfromtlle datehe was relieved Pursuant to the payment dr 9 r 4 4 kA3 Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 29 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 405 CWP No 7358of2010 4 r foresaid Virender Singhwas takenback in servicewllh backwages Another namelyHans Raj Yadav Oled CWP No 1964of 2001 which also came to be decidedin the same manner vide dated2632006 It is case of theparties thatafter the were i 1 relievedfrom service the had issuedadverlisement 1 1 for direct on various posts advertised Under these various writ petitions came to be filed 0 0 It is by the that after the aforemenlioned I about 100 waiters were absorbedby the who were 45 I juniorto the and were in the year 2000 Since tlle 4 Z were not consideredfor another CWP No6993 of 2002was filed in this Court Thispetition was also decidedvide dated 2032007 titled as Dharamvirand othersVs Stateof Haryanaand I r othersby a learnedSingleJudgeof this Court In this writ petition the Z had also challenged the criteria adoptedby the for 00 considerationfor absorptionof the and other similarlysituated mw Z Learned SingleJudgeof thisCourt found that oneofthe clause ll of the criteriawas to the detriment of the directionswere issuedl 41 in view the discussion held above the wril petil is ofwiththe directions to the to remove clause5froln thecriterilaid downbythemanclto make 4e Tralneesfromthe 1Tieritlist preparedby themaflerhldingintervlew on 521999 according to theseniorityagainsttlle availablevacant postsand to the merit lt intactfor a periodofone yearfromtodayand to give thn as andwhenthevacancies anse March 20 2007 SdlmSeN Aggarwal Judge 91 v rmv Vlne 4 Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 29 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 406 e CWP No 7358of2010 m5 1 Afler thepassingof this the corporatioil considered r some of the petitioners and vide orderdated131 2 2007 ten personswcre absorbedagainstthe postsof waiters The grievance of the petitioners IS that their claimswere still not considered Petitioners continuedto make Some of thepetitioners even tlled contemptpetitionbeing COCP No1244 0f1999 and some oftohe OledCWP No16365 of m 1998 In COCP No1244 0f1999 following order was passedl 41Iniew ofthe above lhepresenlpetitionsdisposed ofwitha 0 direction to the to consider the case no13 and 0 15 and other simIay situated petitioners for absorption in the lighlof I t5 atlached as Annexure l2 to Pe6 wilh CM No8197CII of I 2008 4t February022009 Sdl TePSeMann Z Judge I m As a consequenceof tlle aforesaiddirections the Ct I consideredthe claim of the andhave noW passed the CO Z orderdated32009 In theaforesaidorder the hasconsidered all the relied upon by the The claim of the CO for absorption has been primarilyon two grounds W Z That in view of the Constitution Bcnch of theHonble Supreme tl Court in case of Secretary Stateof Kamataka Vs Uma Devi as 200694 SCC lthe of the services of the who were notselectedbyany valid is in law That a ln view of the of the Honble Division Benchof this Court dated 21102008passedin CWP No11076 of 2007 titled as Dilawar SinghVs Officer IndustriaJ Court tlle who were engaged as Trainees are not workmenand thus theyare not entitledto the 4eepe r w Um w amW 1 4 Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 29 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 407 CWP No 7358 of2010 6 P r In the written statement filed bythe a similarplca is raised Onfacts it is statedthat the of thepetitioners as Job was not againstthe regular sanctionedposts Jt is irther stated thatit was in January1999 tlhatthe State Govt for of 140postsofwaiters 83postsofKitchen Helpers and13postsof Counter vide sanctionletterdated2711999 These postswere meantfor direct recruitment for which an advertisementwas 111 4 1 thenewspaper on 273999 for Ollingup the postsof waiters lt is further c1 1 stated that in response to the advertisementa numberof candidates Z some Traineesapplied for thepostshowever in the meantimethe C5 I dated 1 6999 was delivered in CWP No 18474 of 1996 Z whereby direction wasissued to consider no 10 51 except 2 no21 againstthe advertisedposts However the order was in P No 866 of 1999and insteadof directionto absorb it was I r to consider them for The have also Z mentionedthat in orderto the a suitabilitycriteria was 00 laid downfor various posts The criteriahasbeendisclosedin thereplyll 7 Z is accordinglystatedthat soine ofthe petitioners did not fulOll the Qw essential whereastheothersdid not gettherequisite marks as therefore they WCre declaredunsuccessful Some of the candidatesflled CWP No6993 of 2002 the criteria 4 andthiswrit petition was allowed with certaindirectionsandtheorderwas in LPA No203 of 2007 Soine review Sled were also dismissed Mr Shanna learnedcounsel for thepetitioners submitsthat the in Uma Devis case is not in thepresentcase as the e e e e n5 mee4Wmmwve Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 29 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 408 1 3 CW Ncl 7358of2010 m7m 1 1 were engaged muchcarlierin timeand even directionsIlavebeen issued in variouswrit petitions for of lhe petitionersIt is further contendedthatpersonswith similar havebeenabsorbed In para8 of thereplyfiled bythecorporation tohe has Sliatedthat the petitioners do Ilot have similar as in Virender Singhscase 1 Admittedlythe are oul ofjob since 1998 These L Wrlt petitionshave been filed iil the year 2010 challenging the impugned 0 C orderdated32009 TherelS 110 dispute that were as Z 0 Trainees on fixed stipendwith a further that theywill have 110 I claim for regular job It is also not in dispute thattheinitial engagement of Z the petitioners as Trainees was without any advcrtisementor any C procedure for to the publicservice As a matter of fact the 4r I petitioners entrywas backdoor It is equallyprovedthatvarious directions t have been issued by this Court includinga Full Bench to Z consider the petitioners for Some of the writ petitioners have fil been absorbed The petitioners were not partiesto the Full Bench A7 Z though they clai m to be similarlysituated Right of Q consideration to thepetitioners is granted vide orderpassedin thecontempt petitionbeingCOCP No 1244of 1999 Petitioners claim hasbeenrejected vide the impugned order One of the important questionis whether the petitioners have C anyrightof absorption in the servtce of the lt IS indisputed that thee ls a Stateand thus all the posts with the are partof thepublicemploymentIt is not in fact an absorption but a that too aer Uleir selvices wcre Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 29 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 409 CCWI N 7358of2010 08 1 with longback Thereisno specitlc judgelnentwhereunderthe have been directed to be absorbed vanouS directionsthe claim of the can onlybe consideredin the lightof thedirectionsissued by Honble Court in ConstitulionBencll in case of Secretary Stateof KamatkaVs Uma Devi as 2006 4 SCC l supralIt is relevantto note thatsome ofthe observations of the Honble SupreineCourl relatingto the CL are as underl 0 64 53 Oneaspectneedsto be clarilled There may be cases n0 2C Wllre olotillegalaointmenlslas lTl C5 S Naryanaa RN and BN Nagarajan and rerred to P 0C inpara 15 above ofdulyqualulcd personsin dul sandionedvacantposls C have beenmadeand the have conliIwedto workfor len 21 4 or more but withoutlhe interventionof order of the courts or of n lX tribunals The oftlleservlces ofsuch C 11 may have to be consideredon mcrits in theIightoftheprinciIles settled C0 thisCourt in the cases above to and in thc Iightof this Z In that context the Union of lndia the Stale Governmentsand their 0 shouldtakestepsto as a one4imemeasure the OlO 4r SCl11ices ofsuch who have workedfor ten years or meo Z morein duly butnot under cover ofordersofthecourts or of tribunals and should furthcrensurethat regularrecruitments are C undertakentojlll thosevacant sanctionedpostsIhal requireto befilledup lll caSeS where temporaol OY daily wagers are being nOW The process must beset in motion within six monthsfromthis date We also clarifythat if any alreadymade but not sub re4 need not be basedon but thereshouldbe no bypassingof the consliluliollal and or permanentthose not duly as per the constitutional scheme 15 Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 29 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 410 CWP No 7358of2010 e 4r C The claim of the petitioners could best be considercdlll 1ight of the aforesaid The have accorded considerationand rejected their claim The havenot beenable to establishthat their initial engagement was and not illegal As a inatter of fact they were Ollly Trainees Oll stipendbasis and their engagement was against no post Posts were createdonlyin the year 1999 m Thesepostswere putto advertisementOfcourse under the directlionsoftlle r Honble Division Bench of tllis Court some of the vacancies were utilized 0 0 for absorption of some of the candidates but that does not helpthe I C5 to seek even when their claims were rejected on thcir I consideration Even there is any specificdirection for thcir Z consideration the same also cannot be enforcedln view of the following r 2 observationsof the Honble Court tn case of Uma Devi supral tr 4t wherein in para54 it hasbeenhcld as under C1 44 54 It is alsoclarifiedthatthosedecisionswhich run counter Z to theprinciplesettledin this decision Or 111which directions running Cll counter to whatwe hlnle held herein will stand denudedof lheir status as Il e7 Z In view of the above circumstances it is not possible to grant tl relieftothepetitionersThesepetitions are dismissed Copyofthis ordcr be placed on eachconnectedOle r 9 90JAJ 4em PERMOD KOHLII JUDGE 804020110 lucky l Whether to be Yes h l9lefl d 1 4eemae 9 ea4 47 KSm4AW SI r J Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 29 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document