Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in proceeding Na.Ka.PaE1/9426/2008, dated 4.11.2008, and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners.
O R D E R
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioners had been serving under the respondents, for several years, in different capacities, at various places. While so, instead of regularizing their services, they had been asked to seek employment from a private person on the ground that the tender had been floated to hand over the maintenance of the project in question, at Yelagiri hills.
3. It has been further stated that the petitioners, who are employed as government servants, had been terminated from service, without any notice, and they had been asked to work under a private employer. The petitioners should have been regularized in service as they had been working, for a number of years, with the respondents. The action of the respondents, in terminating the services of the petitioners, is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. As such, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, terminating the services of the petitioners, is arbitrary and illegal. The said proceedings had been passed by the first respondent, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the petitioners had been in service, for a number of years, continuously. Therefore, they should have been regularized in service. Instead, the first respondent had passed the impugned order terminating them from service.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had relied on the following decisions in support her contentions. 1) Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (AIR 2006 SCC 1806)
2) BCPP Mazdoor Sangh Vs. NTPC (2007) 14 SCC 234
3) Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 2 SCC 543
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that the petitioners had been engaged, as casual workers, on a fixed amount of salary, on a temporary basis, for the maintenance of the garden of the Yelagiri Hill Tourism and Development Society. The petitioners had been engaged, purely on a temporary basis, on condition that their services could be terminated, at any time, without prior notice. As the petitioners had taken up the works of maintaining the garden of the Yelagiri Hill Tourism and Development Society accepting the said conditions, it is not open to them to claim that they should be regularized in service. Further, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the Yelagiri Hill Tourism and Development Society had not been made a party to the present writ petition, even though the petitioners had been engaged in the maintenance works relating to the said society.
6. It had also been stated that as it was difficult to maintain the `Nature Park, due to shortage of funds, the government had decided to lease out the said park to a private firm. In such circumstances, the petitioners could not be considered for being regularized in service, as claimed by them. It had also been stated that the petitioners had not been working for a number of years, continuously, as claimed by them. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
7. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners for regularization in service cannot be sustained. The petitioners have not been in a position to show, by sufficient evidence, that they had been engaged by the respondents, on a regular basis. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioners to substantiate their claims that they had been employed, under the respondents, for several years, continuously, as claimed by them. As it is a disputed question based on facts, it cannot be decided by this Court, in the present writ petition.
8. It is also noted that the petitioners had been engaged in the maintenance of the Yelagiri Hill Tourism and Development Society, which is a society, registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The State Government had decided to lease out the maintenance of the `Nature Park' to a private firm, due to the shortage of funds in the society. Further, the Yelagiri Hill Tourism and Development Society has not been made a party in the present writ petition, filed by the petitioners. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant the reliefs, prayed for by the petitioners, in the present writ petition. Since, the writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.