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