Bihar Rajya Ardh Sarkari Arajpatrit Karamchari Maha Sangh v. The Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd

senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the matters were adjourned for 04.03.2013 enabling him to file supplementary counter affidavit bringing on record Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association of the respondent Corporation. By way of interim order the respondents were restrained from making final selection on the posts so advertised on the basis of the advertisement dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-24). When the matter was taken up for further hearing on 04.03.2013, again at the request of the learned counsel for the respondents it was adjourned enabling him to comply the previous order. On completion of pleadings from both sides in the main writ petition as also in all the interlocutory applications, finally on

21.03.2013 Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents were heard at great length on merits of the main writ petition as also on all the interlocutory applications. Arguments were concluded from both sides and order was reserved in all these matters. Before considering the merits of the main writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners, it would be appropriate to Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 dispose of all the aforesaid interlocutory applications filed on behalf of the either side. Reg. :Interlocutory Application No. 7683 of 2011 The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer to stay notice dated

08.11.2011 (Annexure-10) issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, whereby date for written examination was fixed on 20.11.2011 in the light of advertisement dated

29.06.2011 (Annexure-6) for making fresh appointments on the basis of the agreement/ contract. In view of subsequent decision dated 27.03.2012 of the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation, as contained in Annexure-18, and the notice dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure-17) withdrawing the previous advertisement dated 29.06.2011 (Annexure-6), the present interlocutory application has become infructuous. It is, accordingly, disposed of as infructuous. Reg.: Interlocutory Application No. 665 of 2012 The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking to amend the prayer portion of the writ petition as well as the Interlocutory Application No. 7683 of 2011 and further seeking leave of this Court to assail the validity of the decision dated 01.06.2011 of the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation. In view of subsequent developments, and subsequent orders and resolutions passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation, learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the instant interlocutory application. Accordingly, instant interlocutory application Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 disposed of as not pressed. Reg.: (a) Interlocutory Application No.1734 of 2012, (b) Interlocutory Application No.1810 of 2012 (c) Interlocutory Application No.1861 of 2012 (d) Interlocutory Application No.2589 of 2012 (e) Interlocutory Application No.2622 of 2012 & (f) Interlocutory Application No.7744 of 2012 All the applicants this batch of interlocutory applications claim to be the employees of the respondent Corporation and they all have prayed that they may be permitted to join as co-petitioners in the main writ petition vide CWJC No. 19417 of 2011. It has been claimed in all these interlocutory applications that the applicants are similarly situate and were appointed by the respondent Corporation on contract basis in similar and identical selection process, as were followed in the case of writ petitioner no. 5 to 26 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Employees writ petitioners’ in short). Therefore, according to them, they are entitled to be joined as co-petitioners and are entitled to get same and similar reliefs as may be granted to the Employees writ petitioners. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made in all the above interlocutory applications. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the applicants of all the above interlocutory applications have not acquired any legal right to the posts claimed by them and if there has been infringement of their legal rights by the orders/ actions of the respondent Corporation and its functionaries, then they are entitled to file their writ petitions separately, but they cannot be permitted to join as co- petitioners in the main writ petition. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 Court is of the opinion that all the above interlocutory applications filed on behalf of different sets of the employees of the respondent Corporation cannot be entertained and are fit to be rejected. Chapter-XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules prescribes the rules for disposal of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Rule-5 of Chapter XXI-C provides for issuance of notice of the application to all the persons directly affected, and if some one desires to be heard in opposition to the writ petition, and if he appears to be a proper person to be heard, then the Court may grant him permission to oppose the writ petition. For better appreciation, Rule-5 of Chapter XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules is reproduced herein below:- “5. The notice of the application alongwith a copy of the application and annexures, if any, shall be served on all persons directly affected and on such other persons as the Court may direct: Provided that on the hearing of any such application, any person who desires to be heard in opposition and appears to the Court to be a proper person to be heard shall be heard, notwithstanding that he has not been served with notice of the application and shall be liable to costs in the discretion of the Court, if the order shall be made”. From plain reading of rule 5 of Chapter XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules, it appears that all the persons, who may be adversely affected by the order to be passed by the Court, must be given an opportunity of hearing. If some one feels that outcome of the writ proceeding may directly affect him, then he is at liberty to file a proper petition for impleading him as respondent in order to oppose the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. There is no provision under the scheme and scope of Chapter XXI-C or Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 under any other rules of the Patna High Court Rules that in a pending writ proceeding other persons should be permitted to join as co-petitioners. Apparently, the applicants are claiming to be the employees of the respondent Corporation. If they have at all acquired any legal right and if they feel aggrieved by any action/ order of the respondent Corporation, then they are free to file separate writ petitions for redressal of their valid grievances. There is another difficulty in allowing the claim of the applicants of the above interlocutory applications. If the above interlocutory applications filed on behalf of all the applicants are allowed and they are permitted to join as co-petitioners, then it would open a Pandora‟s box for similarly situate other employees and it may become an unending process. The disposal of the main writ petition filed on behalf of the original writ petitioners shall unnecessarily get delayed on the ground of filing of fresh/ additional counter affidavits with respect to the claims of the co- petitioners. Perhaps, at times, this may be used as ploy by some shrewd litigants in not allowing the writ petition filed by the original petitioner to be disposed of for ever. For the reasons recorded above, all these interlocutory applications are hereby rejected. However, if they are so advised, they can file separate sets of writ petitions for appropriate reliefs admissible to them, which shall be considered and decided on its own merit without being prejudiced by the rejection of the above interlocutory applications filed on their behalf by the present order. Reg.: Interlocutory Application No. 4051 of 2012 The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer that the fresh advertisement Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 no. 1387 dated 30.05.2012 published in the News Paper on

09.06.2012 (Annexure-16) issued by the respondent Corporation for appointment on contract basis on different posts be set aside/ quashed and the respondents may be restrained from making fresh appointment on contract basis ignoring the claim of the Employees writ petitioners. It appears that by an order dated 09.10.2012 passed in CWJC No.18043 of 2012 (Reeta Jha & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) (Annexure-21), the aforesaid advertisement dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure-16) was stayed. Subsequently, the Board of Directors of respondent Corporation in its meeting dated 09.11.2012 resolved to postpone the aforesaid advertisement no. 1387 dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure-16) and to issue a fresh advertisement for making appointment on different posts under the respondents Corporation. The proceeding dated

09.11.2012 has been brought on records as Annexure-22 to I.A. No. 7897 of 2012. In view of the aforesaid developments, learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed this interlocutory application, as it has become infructuous. In the result, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of as infructuous. Interlocutory Application No. 7897 of 2012 The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking to challenge the validity and correctness of the resolution No. 33-3 dated 09.11.2012 of the Boards of Directors of the respondent Corporation, whereby it was resolved to issue fresh advertisement for filling up the vacant posts. Admittedly, in the light of aforesaid resolution fresh advertisement No. 156 dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-24) was published in the News papers, which is also subject matter of Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 challenge. Therefore, this interlocutory application shall be treated to have been disposed of in terms of order passed in the main writ petition Interlocutory Application No. 513 of 2013 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the writ petitioners, which is in the nature of amendment petition, seeking to challenge the validity, correctness and propriety of the latest advertisement no. 156 dated 15.01.2013, published in the Daily News Paper “Hindustan” in its Patna Edition dated 19.01.2013, as contained in Annexure-24 to the aforesaid interlocutory application. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned advertisement dated 15.01.2013 has been issued by the respondent Corporation, wherein the Employees writ petitioners have been denied even the opportunity to apply for the posts on they were originally appointed by the respondent Corporation and were working, and the posts have been advertised for being filled up on deputation by the employees already in service under different boards and corporation. It is highlighted that in the main writ petition the petitioners claimed that on the basis of their previous selection/ appointment they may be allowed to continue in service of the respondent Corporation till attaining the age of 65 years and, therefore, they challenged the validity of the advertisement dated 29.06.2011 (Annexure-6), whereby they were asked to apply afresh for the posts so advertised and were further asked to undergo a fresh selection process. It is pleaded that in view of the different orders passed by this Court from time to time, the advertisement dated 29.06.2011 (Annexure-6) as also subsequent advertisement dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure-16) were Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 withdrawn by the respondent Corporation itself during the pendency of the present writ petition, but by the impugned advertisement on malafide ground the Employees writ petitioners have been denied even the opportunity to apply for the posts so advertised. It would be relevant to mention here that after having heard the parties at great length by order dated 27.02.2013 passed by this Court, the respondent Corporation and its functionaries were permitted to proceed with the interview of the candidates on the basis of the impugned advertisement dated 15.01.2013, but they were restrained from making final selection on the posts so advertised. Therefore, final selections/ appointments have not been made by the respondent- corporation. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned advertisement dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-24) goes to the root of the matter and the issues involved in the main writ petition. Therefore, for the ends of justice the petitioners are permitted to challenge the validity, correctness and propriety of the impugned advertisement dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-24) initiating a fresh selection process by the respondent Corporation for filling up the vacant posts. For the reasons recorded above, the present Interlocutory Application stands allowed. The reliefs sought for in the present Interlocutory Application shall form part of the main writ petition. Interlocutory Application No. 2014 of 2013 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the respondents with a prayer that the order dated

27.02.2013 passed by this Court may be vacated/ modified and Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 during the pendency of the main writ petition, the respondents may be permitted to proceed with the selection process on the basis of the advertisement no.156 dated 15.01.2013(Annexure-24). This interlocutory application was specifically heard for some time on 19.03.2013 and with the consent of the parties the present interlocutory application as also the main writ petition was fixed for final hearing on 21.03.2013 with a stipulation that no further adjournment shall be granted to any party on any ground and the matter shall be taken up for final disposal on the basis of the materials available on record. Accordingly, on 21.03.2013 learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties were heard at length with respect to the present interlocutory application, besides other interlocutory applications, as also on the merits of the main writ petition. On 21.03.2013 itself arguments concluded from both sides and the orders were reserved in all these matters. Since the main writ petition is also being disposed of by the present order, therefore, instant interlocutory application has become infructuous. It is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19417 of 2011 The petitioner no.1 and 3 are two different Associations of the employees registered as separate Trade Unions claiming to represent the interest of employees working in different Boards/ Corporations in the State of Bihar including the respondent Corporation. The petitioner no.2 claims to be the General Secretary of petitioner no.1, the Association of employees. Similarly, petitioner no.4 claims to be the Organizing Secretary of petitioner no.3, the Association of the employees. The Employees writ petitioners i.e. no.5 to 26 are the employees, who were Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 working under the respondent Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (referred to as „the respondent Corporation‟ in short) pursuant to their appointment on different posts on contract basis on the basis of advertisements issued and selection process concluded by the respondent Corporation and its functionaries.

2. The petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India originally for twin reliefs; firstly, they assailed the validity and propriety of advertisement no. 1904 dated 29.06.2011 (Annexure-6) issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, whereby applications were invited from eligible employees still in service for their deputation on the basis of an agreement and for appointment of the retired employees on contract basis. The employees working under the respondent Corporation on contract basis were also directed to apply afresh if their terms of contract were coming to an end and if they wanted fresh employment. Secondly, the Employees writ petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents for considering their claims for further extension of their services in the light of the decision dated 29.01.2009 (Annexure-3) and

20.08.2010 (Annexure-4) of the respondent Corporation and thereby the Employees writ petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to allow them to continue in service of the respondent Corporation till attainment of the age of 65 years without compelling them to face fresh selection process.

3. Admittedly, impugned advertisement dated

29.06.2011 (Annexure-6) was subsequently withdrawn/ cancelled by notice dated 28.04.2012 issued by the respondent Managing Director of the Corporation, as contained in Annexure-17, in compliance of the resolution dated 27.03.2012 of the Board of Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 Directors of the respondent Corporation, as contained Annexure-18 to the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid developments, the first prayer of the petitioners with respect to the validity of impugned advertisement dated 29.06.2011 (Annexure-6) has become infructuous. Yet, the respondent Corporation has issued the fresh advertisement no. 156 dated

15.01.2013 (Annexure-24), whereby applications have been invited for appointment on various posts under the respondent Corporation, but the Employees writ petitioners have been denied even the opportunity to apply for those advertised posts. Consequently, they filed I.A. No. 513 of 2013 assailing the validity and propriety of the aforesaid advertisement and have prayed for setting aside the said advertisement. Their prayer for amendment made through I.A. No. 513 of 2013 has been allowed by the present order itself and the petitioners have been permitted to assail the validity and propriety of the said advertisement dated

15.01.2013 (Annexure-24).

4. In order to appreciate the issues involved and raised on behalf of the parties and submissions advanced by the learned counsels in support of their respective cases, it would be necessary to notice certain essential facts appearing on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. It is admitted case of the parties that the respondent Corporation was constituted by the State Government in the year 2006. Respondent Corporation is a company wholly owned by the Government of Bihar. It has been incorporated the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The memorandum of Association as also Articles of Association of the respondent Corporation have been brought on record by the respondents as Annexures- D & C respectively through Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 supplementary counter affidavit filed on their behalf on 5th March

2013. The respondent Corporation is governed by the Board of Directors, which have been vested with the powers specified under Article 65 of the Articles of Association, and have been empowered to make appointment of the employees of the Corporation. Admittedly, the respondent Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

5. In order to fill up different vacant posts under the respondent Corporation on contract basis, the advertisements were issued on 18.08.2006, 16.11.2006, 16.04.2008, 23.07.2009, and on few other dates inviting applications for appointment either on deputation or on contract basis. According to the terms of advertisement dated 18.08.2006 and the other advertisements (copies of the advertisements have been brought on record as Annexure-1 series), the appointments/ deputations of the selected employees on contract were required to be made for one year from the date of their joining, but their deputation/ appointment on contract, subject to their satisfactory performance of duty, could have been reduced/ enhanced. In response to the aforesaid advertisements, the Employees writ petitioners submitted their applications for their appointment/ deputation on different posts under the respondent Corporation, and after facing due selection process, they all were appointed by different orders on different posts, which have been brought on record as Annexure-2 series. As per the terms of advertisement, their deputation on the basis of agreement/ appointment on the basis of contract were required to be made only for one year, but as per the terms of appointment orders, the Employees writ petitioners were appointed on contract basis till further order without specifying the period of contract. It Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 is the case of the Employees writ petitioners that they discharged their duty on their respective posts of Depot Manager, Accountant and Assistants, as the case may be, to the best of their ability and the satisfaction of the respondent Corporation and functionaries. Therefore, they were/are entitled to remain in service of the respondent Corporation even after expiry of the period of one year from the date of their initial appointments on such posts. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation in its meeting dated

16.01.2009 resolved to extend the period of contract for two years of all such employees and accordingly, letter/order dated

29.01.2009 (Annexure-3) was issued by the respondent Managing Director of the Corporation. Subsequently, the respondent Managing Director vide his letter dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure-4) made a proposal that the maximum age for superannuation of the employees of the Corporation should be fixed at 65 years. Admittedly, the Employees writ petitioners were allowed to remain in service of the respondent Corporation on contract basis till 31.03.2012 and their service contract was not extended after

31.03.2012. They are no longer in service of the respondent corporation w.e.f. 01.04.2012.

6. While the Employees writ petitioners were still in service on contract basis, in compliance of the resolution of the Board of Directors, advertisement no. 1904 dated 29.06.2011 (Annexure-6) was issued by the respondent Corporation for making fresh appointment on contract basis. The Employees writ petitioners and similarly situated other employees, whose tenure of employment were coming to an end, were given an opportunity to apply afresh, if they were physically fit and wanted further Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 employment under the respondent Corporation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent Corporation the present writ petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners raising a grievance that since the Employees writ petitioners had already faced selection process, therefore, they should not be compelled to face fresh selection process and secondly, their service contract be extended further and they should be allowed to remain in service till attaining the age of 65 years. 20th November 2011 was the date fixed for holding written examination for all the posts so advertised by the aforesaid advertisement dated 29.06.2011. As indicated above, aforesaid advertisement was subsequently withdrawn by virtue of resolution of the Board of Directors taken in its meeting dated 27.03.2012 (Annexure-18) and, accordingly, by notice dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure-17) the advertisement dated 29.06.2011 was withdrawn and cancelled.

7. Subsequently, another advertisement no. 1387 dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure-16) was issued by the respondent Corporation inviting applications from the eligible candidates for their appointment on contract basis on different posts so advertised. However, this advertisement was stayed by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 09.10.2012 passed in CWJC No. 18043 of 2012, vide Annexure-21, whereafter, as has been admitted the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, the Board of Directors also resolved to postpone the aforesaid advertisement dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure-16) and to issue a fresh advertisement for making fresh appointment. Therefore, the advertisement dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure-16) has lost its efficacy.

8. In the light of the decision of the Board of Directors Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013

09.11.2012 (Annexure-22), impugned advertisement no. 156 dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-24) has been issued by the respondent Corporation for filling up the posts of Depot Manager (Foreign liquor Depot), Depot Manager (country liquor depot)-cum- Accountant, Assistant Accountant and driver. As per the terms of the impugned advertisement dated 15.01.2013 only the working employees under different Boards/Corporations the State Government are eligible to apply for appointment on deputation basis initially for a period of three years, which is extendable subject to satisfactory discharge of duty. Since the Employees writ petitioners are no longer in service under the respondent Corporation w.e.f. 01.04.2012, therefore, they are not eligible even to apply for the posts on which they were earlier working, even though they fulfill other requisite criteria/ qualification for such posts.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Employees writ petitioners were appointed on contract basis after due selection process by the respondent corporation and they have been allowed to continue in service till 31.03.2012. Therefore, according to him, in the light of the decisions of the respondent Corporation itself, they should be allowed to continue in service till the attainment of 65 years of age. It is also contended by him that if the services of the Employees writ petitioners would not have been found satisfactory, then in that case respondent Corporation could have revoked their orders of appointment, but admittedly that has not been done. It is pleaded that since the Employees writ petitioners have approached this Court in the present proceeding, therefore, the respondent Corporation and its functionaries, by way of punishment, have Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 refused to extend/ renew their service contract for further period. 10. While assailing the validity and propriety of impugned advertisement dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-24), learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned action of the respondent Corporation denying them even the opportunity to apply for the posts so advertised, is not only arbitrary, rather it is malafide. It is contended that since the petitioners were agitating their grievances the present proceeding with respect to original advertisement dated

29.06.2011 (Annexure-6) and they have been claiming for extension of their service contract, therefore, the respondents Corporation and its functionaries have deliberately, with ulterior motive, denied the Employees writ petitioners their legal right to apply for the posts so advertised, on which they had been working till 31.03.2012. According to the learned counsel, if the respondent Corporation has fixed the upper age limit of 65 years for providing employment, then the petitioners could not have been deprived from their legal right for applying for the posts so advertised, as all the Employees writ petitioners are below 65 years of age. In support of the above contentions he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patilal vs. Union of India [(2012) 7 SCC 757], Union of India Vs. Arun Kumar Roy [AIR 1986 SC 737] as also the judgment of our own High Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1983 Patna 8] and in Raj Mohan Sah vs. The State of Bihar [2010(2) PLJR 777].

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stoutly opposed the prayers made in the present Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 writ petition. It has been submitted that admittedly the Employees writ petitioners were appointed/ deputed on contract basis and their service contract was renewed from time to time by the respondent Corporation and after 31.03.2012 their service contract was not renewed. Therefore, it is submitted that they cannot claim for further extension or for renewal of service contract. It is next urged that in a contractual appointment the relationship of master and servant comes to an end after expiry of the tenure of contract. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Orissa vs. Chandra Sekhar Mishra [(2002)10 SCC 583], and Reji Kumar Vs. Director of Health Services, Kerala [ (2009) 16 SCC 385].

12. In support of the validity and propriety of the impugned advertisement dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-24), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that Article 65 of the Articles of Association of the Corporation gives ample powers the Board of Directors to make appointment of the employees of the respondent Corporation. Accordingly, the Board of Directors in its meeting dated

09.11.2012 (Annexure-22) resolved to make appointment from the working employees of the Board and the Corporation of the State Government. Therefore, according to him, impugned advertisement does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the same vein, it was contended that since the Employees writ petitioners have already been given two terms of service contract of two years each, therefore, they cannot raise any valid grievance in not allowing them to apply for the posts in question. On these pleas, besides others, it was submitted that the writ petition filed Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 on behalf of the petitioners is fit to be dismissed.

13. After having heard the parties and on consideration of rival submissions and the materials available on record, this Court finds that appointments of the Employees writ petitioners were made by the respondent Corporation on the basis of the advertisement issued and due selection process followed. Though as per the terms of the advertisements, appointment either on deputation or on contract basis was required to be made only for one year, which was extendable for further period subject to satisfactory discharge of duty by the employees concerned, but while issuing the orders of appointment, which have been brought on record, as Annexure-2 series, the appointment of the Employees writ petitioners either on deputation or on contract basis was not for fixed tenure, rather it was till further orders. However, the fact remains that, subsequently, in the light of the decision of the Board of Directors, the service contract of the Employees writ petitioners was renewed and was further extended till 31.03.2012. Thereafter, w.e.f. 01.04.2012 the service contract of the Employees writ petitioners were neither renewed nor extended by the respondent Corporation. Therefore, they are no longer in service under the respondent Corporation.

14. The claim of the petitioners Employees writ petitioners should be allowed to remain in service of the respondent Corporation till attaining the age of 65 years is not based on any legal provisions. Even as per the resolution of the Board of Directors, as per Annexure-3 and 4 to the writ petition, the service of the employees of the Corporation was extendable upto the attainment of the age of 65 years, but for that also service contract of the each of the employees was required to Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 be extended for one year each time subject to their physical fitness and satisfactory discharge of duty. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the facts situation of the present case and, therefore, that would not salvage the case of the writ petitioners.

15. Similarly on the ground of equity also, the Employees writ petitioners cannot claim to continue in service of the respondent Corporation on contract basis till attaining the age of 65 years. So far the contractual appointment, appointment on daily wage or casual basis as also the claim for regularization on the ground of long continuance in service are concerned, now, law has been crystallized and well settled by a constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka Vs. Uma Devi (3) [(2006)4 SCC 1], particularly paragraph-43 and 53. In paragraph 43 of the aforesaid judgment the Hon‟ble Apex Court has laid down the law that a contractual appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract. Similarly, an engagement or appointment on daily wage or casual basis would come to an end when it is discontinued. In the words of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly or in terms of the constitutional scheme. In paragraph-53 of the said judgment it was directed that the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize, as one time measure, services of such irregularly appointed employees, who have worked for 10 years or more on duly sanctioned posts, but not under the covers of the orders of the Courts or Tribunals. Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 Applying the aforesaid principles the Employees writ petitioners cannot claim for regularization of their services, since admittedly they are not in service for 10 years or more under the respondent Corporation. Therefore, the Employees writ petitioners cannot claim regularization of their services even on contract basis till attaining the age of 65 years. Admittedly, appointment of the Employees writ petitioners by the respondent Corporation was on contract basis and period of contract came to an end on

31.03.2012. Thereafter, the service contract of the Employees writ petitioners were not renewed or extended.

16. In the aforesaid factual background and in view of law laid down in Uma Devi (3) (Supra) by a Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the claim of the Employees writ petitioners for extension of their services till attainment of the age of 65 years has to fail. It is, accordingly, rejected.

17. Now coming to the impugned advertisement dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-24) issued by the respondent Corporation, this Court finds that when original advertisement dated 29.06.2011 (Annexure-6) was issued by the respondent Corporation, the Employees writ petitioners were still in service. They were eligible for applying for the posts so advertised. The grievance of the petitioners was that since they have already faced selection process for appointment on contract basis, therefore, they should not be compelled to face the selection process afresh and instead their services may be extended and service contract may be renewed. However, in view of the objections raised on behalf of the petitioners and in view of apparent contradictions in the selection process pursued by the respondent Corporation, subsequently it was resolved to withdraw the aforesaid Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 advertisement dated 29.06.2011 and it was, accordingly, cancelled by notice dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure-17). The second advertisement dated 30.05.2012 issued by the respondent Corporation was stayed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated

09.10.2012 (Annexure-21) passed in CWJC No. 18043 of 2012. Subsequently, Board of Directors has also decided to postpone the aforesaid advertisement and issued fresh advertisement. In the aforesaid background when the impugned advertisement dated

15.01.2013 has been issued, the petitioners ought to have been given at least an opportunity to apply for the posts so advertised. They could have been allowed to participate in the selection process and only thereafter eligible candidates could have been appointed on contract basis or on deputation by the respondent Corporation. 18. The action of the respondents in not allowing to the Employees writ petitioners even to apply for the posts so advertised, appears to be wholly arbitrary and contrary to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Not only that the impugned action of the respondent Corporation and its functionaries is apparently with an oblique motive and on extraneous consideration depriving the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is apparent that since the petitioners have been pursuing the present litigation before this Court for redressal of their grievances, therefore, in order to penalize them, a calculated decision with an oblique motive was taken by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation permitting only those employees to apply for the posts so advertised, who are still in service under the different Board and Corporation in the State Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 of Bihar, knowing fully well that in view of the expiry of tenure of their contract the Employees writ petitioners are no longer in service w.e.f. 01.04.2012. This Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondent Corporation and its functionaries, depriving the Employees writ petitioners even from applying for the posts so advertised by the impugned advertisement dated

15.01.2013 (Annexure-24) is a malafide action, which cannot be sustained in law.

19. For the reasons recorded above, impugned advertisement no. 156 dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-24) is hereby set aside and quashed. All actions taken by the respondent Corporation and its functionaries pursuant to the impugned advertisement dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-24) stands nullified. Now, the respondents shall be at liberty to issue a fresh advertisement for filling up the vacant posts under the respondent Corporation wherein besides other eligible candidates, Employees writ petitioners and other employees of the respondent Corporation, who are otherwise eligible, shall be allowed to apply for the posts to be advertised and their claims for appointment as per the terms of the advertisement shall be considered on their own merit, without being prejudiced by the fact that the Employees writ petitioners approached this Court in the present proceeding which resulted in setting aside/ quashing of the impugned advertisement dated 15.01.2013 issued by respondent Corporation. 20. In the result, the writ petition partly succeeds. The impugned advertisement dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-24) stands set aside. However, the claims of the Employees writ petitioners for extension of their service on Patna High Court CWJC No.19417 of 2011 (14) dt.25-04-2013 contract basis till attaining the age of 65 years stand rejected. The parties are left to bear their own costs. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)