LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) 219 Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training Paramjit Singh and Ors. Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training Deepak and CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN CM-3019-LPA CM-3023-LPA 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training Versus Paramjit Singh and Ors. LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training Versus Deepak and Ors. HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Puneet Bhushan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Pandher, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Hitesh Malik, Advocate with Mr. G.S. Aulakh, Advocate for respondent No.2 in LPA-1446 for respondents No.1 to 5 in LPA Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for respondent No.3 in LPA-1446 None for respondent No.7 in both cases. **** ALOK JAIN, J. LPA-2016 in LPA-1446-2016 and LPA-2016 in LPA-1447-2016 Heard. For reasons mentioned in the applications -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:08.04.2025 2016 (O&M) Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training ……Appellant ……Respondents 2016 (O&M) Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training ……Appellant ……Respondents LISA GILL ALOK JAIN Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Puneet Bhushan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Pandher, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Hitesh Malik, Advocate with 1446-2016 and respondents No.1 to 5 in LPA-1447-2016. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate 1446-2016. None for respondent No.7 in both cases. and For reasons mentioned in the applications and arguments Appellant s ……Appellant ……Respondents and arguments SANDEEP SETHI 2025.04.09 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) addressed, delay of 96 days LPA-1447-2016 LPA-1446-2016 and LPA 1. 2016 and LPA No.1447 of 2016 of learned counsel for parties judgment passed by learned Single Judge on 06.04.2016 2. counsel for appellant is their respective posts servicemen Corporation (respondent No. 3 in writ pe No. 7 in the present appeals), to work with appellant allegations of respondents/writ petitioners, they were not allowed to work from 01.05.2015 and their services were terminated 3. by order dated 24.08.2015 under: 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) delay of 96 days in filing LPA-1446 2016 is condoned. Applications are accordingly disposed of. 2016 and LPA-1447-2016 This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. LPA No. 1446 of 2016 and LPA No.1447 of 2016, which are taken up together with consent of learned counsel for parties as both appeals passed by learned Single Judge on 06.04.2016 Brief narration of facts as summarised counsel for appellant is that respondents/writ petitioners were appointed to their respective posts through an outsourcing agency i.e. servicemen Corporation (respondent No. 3 in writ pe No. 7 in the present appeals), to work with appellant allegations of respondents/writ petitioners, they were not allowed to work from 01.05.2015 and their services were terminated The respondents/writ petitioners were directed to by order dated 24.08.2015 passed by learned Single “Though learned counsel for respondents N that they have filed their replies, however, the same are not on record. They would ensure that their replies are on record well before the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as is obvious from the advertisement (Annexure P No.3, there are 19 posts of Information Assista Peons with the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial -2- 1446-2016 and 94 days in filing Applications are accordingly disposed of. of two appeals i.e. LPA No. 1446 of which are taken up together with consent both appeals arise out of common passed by learned Single Judge on 06.04.2016. summarised by learned Senior that respondents/writ petitioners were appointed to through an outsourcing agency i.e. Punjab Ex- servicemen Corporation (respondent No. 3 in writ petitions and respondent No. 7 in the present appeals), to work with appellant-Board. According to allegations of respondents/writ petitioners, they were not allowed to work from 01.05.2015 and their services were terminated. ners were directed to be reinstated learned Single Bench, which reads as Though learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submit that they have filed their replies, however, the same are not on record. would ensure that their replies are on record well before the next Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as is obvious from the advertisement (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent No.3, there are 19 posts of Information Assistants available and 2 of Peons with the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial in filing of two appeals i.e. LPA No. 1446 of which are taken up together with consent common by learned Senior that respondents/writ petitioners were appointed to - titions and respondent . According to allegations of respondents/writ petitioners, they were not allowed to work d , which reads as .2 to 4 submit that they have filed their replies, however, the same are not on record. would ensure that their replies are on record well before the next Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as is 7) issued by respondent nts available and 2 of Peons with the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial SANDEEP SETHI 2025.04.09 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) Training, i.e. respondent No.2, which are proposed to be filled in by replacing the petitioners with contractual employees. He relies upon a judgment of a co in turn, relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Singh Ahuja and others Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others.2014(146) DRJ 167, holding therein that a contractual employee even employed be placed by another contractual employee. He further submits that said judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, that 19 posts of Information Assistants and 4 posts of Peons are lying vacant even as of today. On specific query from Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Administrative Officer in the Punjab State Board of Technical Education, who is present in Court, as to whether any additional qualification/criteria for recruitment has been advertised, vide the advertisement under challenge for the posts in question, he has replied in the negative. He has also been specifically asked as to whether regular recruitment is ongoing, to which again he has has further submitted that the recruitment process is being undertaken in view of the fact that the Board constantly is in requirement of information Assistants (as also Peons), in view of the numerous examinations conducted by the Board. If that is so, it is not understood as to why the petitioners, who were already recruited on contract/daily wage basis could not be continued on the posts which are admittedly required, instead of such posts being again put to advertisement, contractual employees. Again on query to the Administrative Officer, he had stated that there is nothing adverse against the petitioners, as regards their performance or service record. It was contended by learned counsel for responde petitioner No.2, Ranjeet Kaur, was not appointed as an information Assistant, but as a Data Entry Operator with respondent No.4(and not with respondent No.2). In this regard, he pointed to Annexure P Page 18 of the paper book), which re counsel for respondent No.2, has produced in Court, information which is stated to be “as per records of various unskilled/skilled workers” including Ranjeet Kaur (petitioner No.2) showing that she was working as a Data Entry Operator with respondent No.4 from December 2011 to -3- Training, i.e. respondent No.2, which are proposed to be filled in by replacing the petitioners with contractual employees. He relies upon a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench, which, in turn, relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Narinder Singh Ahuja and others Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family 2014(146) DRJ 167, holding therein that a contractual employee even employed by an outsourcing agency, cannot be placed by another contractual employee. He further submits that the said judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, on Information Assistants and 4 posts of Peons are lying vacant even as of today. On specific query from Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Administrative Officer in the Punjab State Board of Technical Education, who is present in Court, as to whether any additional ication/criteria for recruitment has been advertised, vide the advertisement under challenge for the posts in question, he has replied in the negative. He has also been specifically asked as to whether regular recruitment is ongoing, to which again he has replied in the negative. He has further submitted that the recruitment process is being undertaken in view of the fact that the Board constantly is in requirement of information Assistants (as also Peons), in view of the numerous examinations If that is so, it is not understood as to why the petitioners, who were already recruited on contract/daily wage basis could not be continued on the posts which are admittedly required, instead of such posts being again put to advertisement, to be filled in by contractual employees. Again on query to the Administrative Officer, he had stated that there is nothing adverse against the petitioners, as regards their performance or service record. It was contended by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that petitioner No.2, Ranjeet Kaur, was not appointed as an information Assistant, but as a Data Entry Operator with respondent No.4(and not with respondent No.2). In this regard, he pointed to Annexure P-1 (at Page 18 of the paper book), which records as such. However, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has produced in Court, information which is stated to be “as per records of various unskilled/skilled workers” including Ranjeet Kaur (petitioner No.2) showing that she was working ry Operator with respondent No.4 from December 2011 to Training, i.e. respondent No.2, which are proposed to be filled in by ordinate Bench, which, Narinder Singh Ahuja and others Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family 2014(146) DRJ 167, holding therein that a by an outsourcing agency, cannot the It is admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, on Information Assistants and 4 posts of Peons are lying vacant even as of today. On specific query from Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Administrative Officer in the Punjab State Board of Technical Education, who is present in Court, as to whether any additional ication/criteria for recruitment has been advertised, vide the advertisement under challenge for the posts in question, he has replied in the negative. He has also been specifically asked as to whether regular replied in the negative. He has further submitted that the recruitment process is being undertaken in view of the fact that the Board constantly is in requirement of information Assistants (as also Peons), in view of the numerous examinations If that is so, it is not understood as to why the petitioners, who were already recruited on contract/daily wage basis could not be continued on the posts which are admittedly required, to be filled in by contractual employees. Again on query to the Administrative Officer, he had stated that there is nothing adverse against the petitioners, as nt No.3 that petitioner No.2, Ranjeet Kaur, was not appointed as an information Assistant, but as a Data Entry Operator with respondent No.4(and not 1 (at cords as such. However, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has produced in Court, information which is stated to be “as per records of various unskilled/skilled workers” including Ranjeet Kaur (petitioner No.2) showing that she was working ry Operator with respondent No.4 from December 2011 to SANDEEP SETHI 2025.04.09 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) 4. vide its subsequent conduct Punjabi Typewriting Test 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) June 2012 and since August 2012, she is working as information Assistant, through PESCO (respondent No.3), with respondent No.2 as her employer. Thus contention of counsel for respondent No.2, in that regard, is misplaced. In view of the facts discussed and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioners even though they were relieved taken back in service, subject to the outcome of this writ petition and further, of course, subject to any regular recruitment being made by the respondents, on the posts in question. Adjourned to 30.10.2015. However, learned Single Bench subsequent order dated 10.09.2015 conduct Punjabi Typewriting Test, which reads as under: “The issue eventually involved on whether or not the most of whom are working as appointed vide order Annexure P- terms of the eligibility conditions prescribed by the (Respondent No.2), vide its letter addressed to 11.06.2012 (Annexure R-2/1), i.e. whether the working as Information Assistants can typewrite 30 w.p.m. or not. As per the said letter, a regard, by either the Board, i.e. respondent No.2, Authority, who at that time was respondent No.3. Undoubtedly, the petitioners have continued beyond the contract, inasmuch as, their appointment was to last as respondent No.3 was on contract with respondent No.2 as a agency. That contract expired on 30.09.2013. However, continued working with respondent No.2 till year and 07 months after the contract had expired. Admittedly, now again, respondent No.2, as a recruiting agency. Though this Court was actually inclined to direct respondent No.3 to hold the test of Punjabi Typewriting of those petitioners who are working as Information Assistants, learned counsel for respondent No.3 rightly points out that after the expiry of -4- June 2012 and since August 2012, she is working as information Assistant, through PESCO (respondent No.3), with respondent No.2 as her employer. Thus contention of counsel for respondent No.2, in that In view of the facts discussed and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the relieved on 01.05.2015, be immediately taken back in service, subject to the outcome of this writ petition and further, of course, subject to any regular recruitment being made by the respondents, on the posts in question. Adjourned to 30.10.2015.” ch modified the aforesaid order, order dated 10.09.2015 and directed appellant to , which reads as under: The issue eventually involved on whether or not the petitioners, most of whom are working as Information Assistants, originally -1 w.e.f. 01.08.2012, are eligible in terms of the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Respondent Board (Respondent No.2), vide its letter addressed to respondent No.3, on 2/1), i.e. whether the petitioners who were working as Information Assistants can typewrite in Punjabi, at a speed of the said letter, a test was to be conducted in this respondent No.2, or the Appointing respondent No.3. Undoubtedly, the petitioners have continued beyond the period of contract, inasmuch as, their appointment was to last as long as respondent No.3 was on contract with respondent No.2 as a recruiting agency. That contract expired on 30.09.2013. However, the petitioners continued working with respondent No.2 till 30.04.2015, i.e. about 01 year and 07 months after the contract between respondents No. 2 and 3 again, respondent No.3 is on contract with recruiting agency. Though this Court was actually respondent No.3 to hold the test of Punjabi Typewriting petitioners who are working as Information Assistants, learned ounsel for respondent No.3 rightly points out that after the expiry of the June 2012 and since August 2012, she is working as information Assistant, through PESCO (respondent No.3), with respondent No.2 as her employer. Thus contention of counsel for respondent No.2, in that In view of the facts discussed and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the immediately taken back in service, subject to the outcome of this writ petition and further, of course, subject to any regular recruitment being made by the , appellant to petitioners, originally eligible in Respondent Board respondent No.3, on petitioners who were in Punjabi, at a speed of test was to be conducted in this or the Appointing period of long as ecruiting the petitioners 30.04.2015, i.e. about 01 between respondents No. 2 and 3 respondent No.3 is on contract with recruiting agency. Though this Court was actually respondent No.3 to hold the test of Punjabi Typewriting petitioners who are working as Information Assistants, learned the SANDEEP SETHI 2025.04.09 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) contract between respondents No.2 and 3 on 30.09.2013, the cannot be treated to be the employees of respondent Without a doubt, till 30.04.2015, the petitioners we salary, whether on daily wages or otherwise, but from and not day to day, by respondent No.2, and vide the 11.06.2012, pursuant to which the petitioners were respondent No. 3, the stipulation was that or the Board would conduct the Punjabi Since the petitioners continued serving with the Board till 30.04.2015, the Board, i.e. respondent No.2, is directed to conduct Punjabi Typewriting Test within two weeks. Since the petitioners have not still been reinstated despite interim order of this Court dated 02.09.2015, the test shall not be conducted for 3 days after the petitioners are allowed to rejoin and it will be conducted 3 days after into service. The petitioners would report for duty on 14.09.2015. As regards, the peons, i.e. petitioner No.1 in CWP No. 2015 and petitioner No.4 in CWP No. 18416 of 2015, the would produce their matriculation certificates before the that they are qualified to be appointed as Peons, in letter dated 11.06.2012. The selection procedure of the petitioners in 2012, along tests etc. held at the time of their recruitment, as also in recruitments made by respondent No.3 for respondent produced in Court, on the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners in CWP No.18416 of submits that the petitioners would be withdrawing the instituted by them before the Assistant Labour Court, as have been described in para 7 of the In view of the above, these petitioners would also appear Punjabi typewriting test, to be conducted by the respondent which would not be conducted for a period of 3 days after been served on these petitioners, at the addresses petition. Interim order to continue with regard to the posts earlier occupied by the petitioners. -5- contract between respondents No.2 and 3 on 30.09.2013, the petitioners cannot be treated to be the employees of respondent No.3. Without a doubt, till 30.04.2015, the petitioners were being paid salary, whether on daily wages or otherwise, but from month to month and not day to day, by respondent No.2, and vide the letter dated 11.06.2012, pursuant to which the petitioners were recruited by respondent No. 3, the stipulation was that either the appointing authority or the Board would conduct the Punjabi typewriting test. Since the petitioners continued serving with the Board till 30.04.2015, the Board, i.e. respondent No.2, is directed to conduct the o weeks. Since the petitioners have not still been reinstated despite the interim order of this Court dated 02.09.2015, the test shall not be conducted for 3 days after the petitioners are allowed to rejoin service, and it will be conducted 3 days after the petitioners have been reinstated into service. The petitioners would report for duty on Monday, i.e. As regards, the peons, i.e. petitioner No.1 in CWP No. 12805 of 2015 and petitioner No.4 in CWP No. 18416 of 2015, the petitioners produce their matriculation certificates before the Board to show that they are qualified to be appointed as Peons, in terms of the aforesaid The selection procedure of the petitioners in 2012, along with all time of their recruitment, as also in subsequent recruitments made by respondent No.3 for respondent No.2, shall be produced in Court, on the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners in CWP No.18416 of 2015 uld be withdrawing the proceedings instituted by them before the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Labour Court, as have been described in para 7 of the writ petition . In view of the above, these petitioners would also appear in the to be conducted by the respondent- Board, which would not be conducted for a period of 3 days after notices have been served on these petitioners, at the addresses given in the writ Interim order to continue with regard to the posts earlier petitioners being paid month to month letter dated recruited by appointing authority Since the petitioners continued serving with the Board till the the interim order of this Court dated 02.09.2015, the test shall not be service, been reinstated Monday, i.e. 12805 of petitioners Board to show terms of the aforesaid with all subsequent No.2, shall be 2015 proceedings Commissioner/Labour in the Board, notices have given in the writ Interim order to continue with regard to the posts earlier SANDEEP SETHI 2025.04.09 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) 5. petitioners filed LPA No. 1382 of 2015, mandating the following order 6. of 2015 and LPA No.1384 of 2015 conduct the typing test in the last week of January 2016. 7. Single Bench under: 8. filed by appellant 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) Adjourned to 28.09.2015.” Against the said order dated 10.09.2015, petitioners filed LPA No. 1382 of 2015, in which order dated 10.09.2015 mandating the Punjabi Typewriting test, was initially stayed following order dated 19.09.2015, which reads as under “Notice of motion for 24.09.2015. The test to be conducted on 21.09.2015 (Monday), shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Process dasti. A copy of this order be handed over to counsel f under signatures of the Bench Secretary of this Court Thereafter, vide final order dated 15.12.2015 and LPA No.1384 of 2015, were conduct the typing test in the last week of January 2016. Subsequently, the test result was placed Single Bench vide order dated 06.04.2016, allowed the writ petitions as “Resultantly, the respondents are services of the petitioners and the petitioner shall continue in their services. In case the services are to be dispensed with a show cause notice shall be issued to the petitioners by giving them adequate opportunities to fulfill the terms and conditions period of time, as has been granted to the similarly situated set of persons, now employed, which is one year. Resultantly, the petitioners will also be entitled for the financial benefits for the their services were arbitrarily dispensed with. With petitions are allowed in the above Subsequent thereto review application appellant and the same was disposed of in the following terms. -6- Against the said order dated 10.09.2015, respondents/writ in which order dated 10.09.2015 test, was initially stayed as per , which reads as under. Notice of motion for 24.09.2015. The test to be conducted on 21.09.2015 (Monday), shall remain A copy of this order be handed over to counsel for the appellant, under signatures of the Bench Secretary of this Court”. final order dated 15.12.2015, LPA No. 1382 were disposed of with directions to conduct the typing test in the last week of January 2016. Subsequently, the test result was placed on record and learned order dated 06.04.2016, allowed the writ petitions as restrained from dispensing with the services of the petitioners and the petitioner shall continue in their services. In case the services are to be dispensed with a show cause notice shall be issued to the petitioners by giving them adequate s to fulfill the terms and conditions, within a reasonable as has been granted to the similarly situated set of persons, now employed, which is one year. Resultantly, the petitioners will also be entitled for the financial benefits for the period from which their services were arbitrarily dispensed with. With petitions are allowed in the above-said terms.” Subsequent thereto review application dated 02.08.2016 was was disposed of in the following terms. respondents/writ in which order dated 10.09.2015 as per The test to be conducted on 21.09.2015 (Monday), shall remain or the appellant, LPA No. 1382 to learned order dated 06.04.2016, allowed the writ petitions as restrained from dispensing with the services of the petitioners and the petitioner shall continue in their services. In case the services are to be dispensed with a show cause notice shall be issued to the petitioners by giving them adequate within a reasonable as has been granted to the similarly situated set of persons, now employed, which is one year. Resultantly, the petitioners period from which was SANDEEP SETHI 2025.04.09 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) 9. setting aside order dated 06.04.2016 as well as order dated 02.08.2016 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) “Resultantly, no directions are liable to be issued in the review application, which otherwise has been held not to be maintainable vide order dated 29.04.2016, which re “Revision of the order dated 06.04.2016 has been sought. Senior counsel for the applicant that the Division Bench had given the petitioners an opportunity to sit in the Punjabi test and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for another opportunity, as similarly situated persons appointed in the next year had been granted time to clear the test within a period of one year. Vide which the order which is sought to be reviewed, the Division Bench directions have been reproduced and it has been noticed that apart from the fact that there holding of a test, the Division Bench had given liberty to this Court to decide the issue on merits. This Court has come to a finding that the modem by which the Corporation has sought to dispense with the services of the petitioners is not appropriate and adequate opportunities should have been given to them to pass the test. Accordingly, it has been left open to the Corporation to issue show cause notice by giving the petitioners adequate opportunities to fulfill the term conditions within a reasonable period of time, as given to the said persons. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order which is sought to be reviewed, as the interest of the Corporati At this stage, senior counsel submits that the Corporation proposes to hold a test for the similarly situated persons in May, 2016. Therefore, petitioners may be also directed to take part in the said test. Notice regarding this limited aspect to Mr. M.S. Sindhu and Mr. Deepankur Sharma, Advocate. Adjourned to 06.05.2016. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.” Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are also not being given the financial benefits, as per order dated 6.04.2016 passed in their favour. It is always open for the petitioners to take recourse to their remedies in accordance with law pertaining to the implementation of the said order. Accordingly, the review application Aggrieved therefrom, present appeals have been filed setting aside order dated 06.04.2016 as well as order dated 02.08.2016 -7- “Resultantly, no directions are liable to be issued in the review application, which otherwise has been held not to be maintainable vide order dated 29.04.2016, which reads as under: Revision of the order dated 06.04.2016 has been sought. counsel for the applicant-respondent No.2 has submitted that the Division Bench had given the petitioners an opportunity to sit in the Punjabi test and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for another opportunity, as similarly situated persons the next year had been granted time to clear the test Vide which the order which is sought to be reviewed, the Division Bench directions have been reproduced and it has been noticed that apart from the fact that there were interim orders initially for holding of a test, the Division Bench had given liberty to this Court to decide the issue on merits. This Court has come to a finding that the modem by which the Corporation has sought to dispense with the services of the petitioners is not appropriate and adequate opportunities should have been given to them to pass the test. Accordingly, it has been left open to the Corporation to issue show cause notice by giving the petitioners adequate opportunities to fulfill the terms and conditions within a reasonable period of time, as given to the said In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order which is sought to be reviewed, as the interest of the Corporation stands duly protected. At this stage, senior counsel submits that the Corporation to hold a test for the similarly situated persons in May, Therefore, petitioners may be also directed to take part in the said imited aspect to Mr. M.S. Sindhu and Mr. Deepankur Sharma, Advocate. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.” Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners financial benefits, as per order dated 6.04.2016 passed in their favour. It is always open for the petitioners to take recourse to their remedies in accordance with law pertaining to the implementation of the said order. Accordingly, the review applications are disposed of.” , present appeals have been filed for setting aside order dated 06.04.2016 as well as order dated 02.08.2016. “Resultantly, no directions are liable to be issued in the review application, which otherwise has been held not to be respondent No.2 has submitted that the Division Bench had given the petitioners an opportunity to sit in the Punjabi test and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for another opportunity, as similarly situated persons the next year had been granted time to clear the test Vide which the order which is sought to be reviewed, the Division Bench directions have been reproduced and it has been noticed were interim orders initially for holding of a test, the Division Bench had given liberty to this This Court has come to a finding that the modem by which the Corporation has sought to dispense with the services of the petitioners is not appropriate and adequate opportunities should have been given to them to pass the test. Accordingly, it has been left open to the Corporation to issue show cause notice by giving s and conditions within a reasonable period of time, as given to the said In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order which is sought to be on stands duly protected. At this stage, senior counsel submits that the Corporation to hold a test for the similarly situated persons in May, Therefore, petitioners may be also directed to take part in the said imited aspect to Mr. M.S. Sindhu and Mr. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners financial benefits, as per order dated 6.04.2016 passed in their favour. It is always open for the petitioners to take recourse to their remedies in accordance with for SANDEEP SETHI 2025.04.09 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) 10. of contract between appellant and employed by appellant. was not renewed. However, have failed to clear the test and hence, they have no subsisting rig 11. order dated 06.04.2016 was stayed by this Court on 19.08.2016 dated 05.09.2018 applications for vacation/modification of stay were dismissed and appellant posts; to throw such posts in open market giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and During pendency of appellant to indicate the present status of respondents/writ petitioners vide order dated 22.1.2020. In response thereof, an affidavit of Mr. Singh, Administrative Officer, on behalf of the Secretary, Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training was filed on 01.11.2022 except for one respondent petitioners were able to clear the test. No.2, 4 and 5 were working and their services were dispensed with, vide office order dated 09.12.2016. Thereafter, respondents/writ petitioners mentioned at serial No.1 and 3 worked till November 2017, but presently none of the respondent/writ petitioner is 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) Learned counsel for appellant submits that there is no privity of contract between appellant and respondents, as respondents were never employed by appellant. Counsel for appellant further was not renewed. However, de hors the above, he submits that respondents have failed to clear the test and hence, they have no subsisting rig Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that order dated 06.04.2016 was stayed by this Court on 19.08.2016 dated 05.09.2018 applications for vacation/modification of stay were dismissed and appellant-Board was held to be at liberty to posts; to throw such posts in open market giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and complete and thereafter make the selection uring pendency of these appeals, an affidavit was called from the appellant to indicate the present status of respondents/writ petitioners vide order dated 22.1.2020. In response thereof, an affidavit of Mr. Singh, Administrative Officer, on behalf of the Secretary, Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training was filed on by moving CM-2350-2022, wherein it was demonstrated that except for one respondent-Jyoti Aggarwal, none of the respondents/writ petitioners were able to clear the test. Respondents/writ petitioners at Sr. No.2, 4 and 5 were working and their services were dispensed with, vide office order dated 09.12.2016. Thereafter, respondents/writ petitioners entioned at serial No.1 and 3 worked till November 2017, but presently none of the respondent/writ petitioner is serving -8- Learned counsel for appellant submits that there is no privity respondents, as respondents were never Counsel for appellant further submits that contract the above, he submits that respondents have failed to clear the test and hence, they have no subsisting rights. Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that operation of order dated 06.04.2016 was stayed by this Court on 19.08.2016 vide order dated 05.09.2018 applications for vacation/modification of stay were Board was held to be at liberty to “advertise the posts; to throw such posts in open market giving opportunity to all eligible complete and thereafter make the selection”. , an affidavit was called from the appellant to indicate the present status of respondents/writ petitioners vide order dated 22.1.2020. In response thereof, an affidavit of Mr. Harinder Pal Singh, Administrative Officer, on behalf of the Secretary, Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training was filed on , wherein it was demonstrated that wal, none of the respondents/writ espondents/writ petitioners at Sr. No.2, 4 and 5 were working and their services were dispensed with, vide office order dated 09.12.2016. Thereafter, respondents/writ petitioners entioned at serial No.1 and 3 worked till November 2017, but presently serving the appellant-Board. Learned counsel for appellant submits that there is no privity respondents, as respondents were never submits that contract the above, he submits that respondents operation of vide order dated 05.09.2018 applications for vacation/modification of stay were advertise the posts; to throw such posts in open market giving opportunity to all eligible . , an affidavit was called from the appellant to indicate the present status of respondents/writ petitioners vide Harinder Pal Singh, Administrative Officer, on behalf of the Secretary, Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training was filed on , wherein it was demonstrated that wal, none of the respondents/writ espondents/writ petitioners at Sr. No.2, 4 and 5 were working and their services were dispensed with, vide office order dated 09.12.2016. Thereafter, respondents/writ petitioners entioned at serial No.1 and 3 worked till November 2017, but presently SANDEEP SETHI 2025.04.09 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) 12. respondents/writ petitioners have any grievance, the same has against their appointing agency not an agency of the State to make recruitment against a civil post, and respondents/writ petitioners are not employees of the appellant light of the abov petitions be dismissed. 13. opposed the appeals with the appellant for a long time, and issue raised by them is that they were not afforded services. It was further argued that this is not a case of contractual employee with a regular employee, but rather replacing one set of contractual employees with another 14. However, d not demonstrate contractual employees' rights vis is not their appointing authority. nor deny the fact that Punjab Ex-servicemen Corporation private outsourcing agency with whom outsourcing manpower appellant. It could 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) Learned counsel for appellant submitted that if respondents/writ petitioners have any grievance, the same has against their appointing agency i.e. respondent No.7 not an agency of the State to make recruitment against a civil post, and respondents/writ petitioners are not employees of the appellant light of the above, it was pleaded that present be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for respondents vehemently the appeals and submitted that respondents have been working with the appellant for a long time, and issue raised by them is that they afforded any opportunity to be heard before services. It was further argued that this is not a case of contractual employee with a regular employee, but rather replacing one set of contractual employees with another set of contractual employees We heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record owever, despite their best efforts, learned not demonstrate contractual employees' rights vis is not their appointing authority. Respondents could neither demonstrate nor deny the fact that they were appointed with the appellant thr servicemen Corporation (respondent No.7 herein) private outsourcing agency with whom outsourcing manpower and under which respondents were employed appellant. It could also not be demonstrated how the writ petitioners have -9- Learned counsel for appellant submitted that if respondents/writ petitioners have any grievance, the same has to be agitated i.e. respondent No.7. A service provider is not an agency of the State to make recruitment against a civil post, and respondents/writ petitioners are not employees of the appellant-Board. In present appeals be allowed and writ Learned counsel appearing for respondents vehemently and submitted that respondents have been working with the appellant for a long time, and issue raised by them is that they any opportunity to be heard before termination of their services. It was further argued that this is not a case of replacing a contractual employee with a regular employee, but rather replacing one set set of contractual employees. eard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. learned counsel for respondents could not demonstrate contractual employees' rights vis-à-vis the appellant, who espondents could neither demonstrate they were appointed with the appellant through (respondent No.7 herein), admittedly a private outsourcing agency with whom appellant had a contract for respondents were employed for the ated how the writ petitioners have Learned counsel for appellant submitted that if to be agitated . A service provider is not an agency of the State to make recruitment against a civil post, and Board. In be allowed and writ Learned counsel appearing for respondents vehemently and submitted that respondents have been working with the appellant for a long time, and issue raised by them is that they termination of their replacing a contractual employee with a regular employee, but rather replacing one set . counsel for respondents could vis the appellant, who espondents could neither demonstrate ough admittedly a for the ated how the writ petitioners have SANDEEP SETHI 2025.04.09 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) any inherent right of their fundamental rights contract between them inception were aware that they are have been rather claim, if any, could only be 15. the judgment Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., their arguments by another set of not support the case contractual appointment which was replacing employee. It is a matter of record that writ on contract by appellant outsourcing agency 16. respondents/ qualify Punjabi Typing to continue in the service, respondents Mahajan v. Prof. R.C. Deka, 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) any inherent right or claim qua the appellant fundamental rights by appellant, in the absence of any contract between them. Respondents/writ petitioners from the very inception were aware that they are not employee rather appointed through Punjab Ex claim, if any, could only be qua respondent No.7 Although learned counsel for respondents tried to rely upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2007 (13) SCC 292 their arguments that one set of contractual employees cannot be by another set of contractual employees. However, not support the respondents/writ petitioners contractual appointments were made was replacing the employees with another set of contractual It is a matter of record that writ petitioners were never employed on contract by appellant-Board, they were employed through the outsourcing agency. Considering the present scenario, where neither the respondents/writ petitioners are working with the appellant nor they qualify Punjabi Typing test, which may have continue in the service, no substantial claim can be r s/writ petitioners. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Mahajan v. Prof. R.C. Deka, Director All India, -10- appellant, much less claim any violation by appellant, in the absence of any privity of espondents/writ petitioners from the very employees of appellant-Board and Punjab Ex-Service Corporation. Their respondent No.7. counsel for respondents tried to rely upon passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Hargurpratap 2007 (13) SCC 292 to substantiate that one set of contractual employees cannot be substituted . However, the said judgment does respondents/writ petitioners for the reason that in the said were made by the appellant-Board itself with another set of contractual petitioners were never employed , they were employed through the Considering the present scenario, where neither the writ petitioners are working with the appellant nor they could have vested them with some right no substantial claim can be raised by the Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Director All India, 2018 (3) SCC 218 has any violation of espondents/writ petitioners from the very Board and Their counsel for respondents tried to rely upon Hargurpratap to substantiate substituted the said judgment does in the said itself with another set of contractual petitioners were never employed , they were employed through the Considering the present scenario, where neither the could right aised by the Yogesh has SANDEEP SETHI 2025.04.09 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment LPA-1446-2016 (O&M) LPA-1447-2016 (O&M) held that even a contractual employee does not have a vested right to have his or her contract rene on the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Vs. State of Punjab and others held that acceptance of claim of employees of the service pro 'public employment' under the State would amount to a back public employment, which would be in total disregard to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 17. respondents/ time, in our considered opinion, impugned decision dated 06.04.2016 is not sustainable. 18. 06.04.2016 petitions filed by respondents/writ petitioners are dismissed. 19. (ALOK JAIN JUDGE April, 08 2025 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) that even a contractual employee does not have a vested right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. on the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014(1) SCT 33 held that acceptance of claim of employees of the service pro 'public employment' under the State would amount to a back public employment, which would be in total disregard to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the given factual matrix respondents/writ petitioners are not serving the present appellant for a long in our considered opinion, impugned decision dated 06.04.2016 is not Accordingly, present appeals are 06.04.2016 passed by learned Single Judge petitions filed by respondents/writ petitioners are dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of. ALOK JAIN) 2025. Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No -11- that even a contractual employee does not have a vested right to have from time to time. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Nishan Singh and others 2014(1) SCT 33, in which it was clearly held that acceptance of claim of employees of the service provider over 'public employment' under the State would amount to a back door entry to public employment, which would be in total disregard to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. factual matrix coupled with the fact that writ petitioners are not serving the present appellant for a long in our considered opinion, impugned decision dated 06.04.2016 is not are allowed and decision dated passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequently writ petitions filed by respondents/writ petitioners are dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of. (LISA GILL) JUDGE that even a contractual employee does not have a vested right to have Reliance can also be placed Nishan Singh and others in which it was clearly vider over door entry to public employment, which would be in total disregard to the mandate of that writ petitioners are not serving the present appellant for a long in our considered opinion, impugned decision dated 06.04.2016 is not ted Consequently writ SANDEEP SETHI 2025.04.09 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment