Prahlad Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard the petitioners who are present-in-person before the Court and the learned Addl. Govt. Counsel.

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition in this Court on 18.09.2014 seeking following relief/s:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that the record of the case may kindly be called for and after examine the same this Hon''ble Court by an appropriate writ order or direction quashed and set aside the tender dated 05.08.2014 (Annexure-5) and any other proceeding/order which has been passed in pursuance of NIT dated 05.08.2014. A declaration may kindly be made that the petitioners cant be replaced by ad hoc employees. A further mandate be issued to the respondents that petitioners can only be removed by the regularly selected candidates."

The petitioners were appointed on contractual basis as Security Guards vide the orders dated 27.09.2008 (Annex. 1) and 26.09.2013 issued by Nagaur, on daily wages basis @ Rs. 81/- per day. In pursuance to the appointment orders, a contract agreement was also executed with the petitioners and the third respondent. According to petitioner, their contractual term has been extended from time to time and they are being paid their monthly remuneration in pursuance of the Notification dated 17.04.2006 (Annex. 4). The petitioners having the apprehension that in view of Annex. 5, Advertisement dated 05.08.2014 issued by the second respondent, namely, Assistant Director, Child Right & Protection Department, Nagaur, inviting tender from other registered security agencies for employment of 3 (three) security guards, their services as security guards through private respondent No. 4, Poorva Sainik Kalyan Bahu Uddaishya Sahakari Samiti, Nagaur, are likely to be terminated and, therefore, the said recruitment process deserves to be stopped and an interference in the said process should be made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners No. 1 and 2 are present in person, cited before this Court an interim order granted by this Court in SBCWP No. 3737/2014-Sunil Kumar & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., in a batch of 4 writ petitions, in similar circumstances, this Court passed the following interim order to the following effect on 28.05.2014:-

"In view of above position, by way of interim relief, the respondents are directed to continue the present petitioners who are working as Security Guards in the building up to 15.06.2014 or till the availability of regularly selected 251 Security Guards from the aforesaid four categories, whichever is later. The respondents will be free to undertake said regular recruitment process of the Security Guards and the services of the present petitioners on contractual basis shall be terminated only by passing appropriate orders by the competent authority once such regular recruitment process is completed and the 251 Security Guards in the aforesaid manner are made available. A report of such regular recruitment process and list of such candidates and their category may be placed before this Court before the next date."

This Court while deciding identical writ petition involving similar controversy in SBCWP No. 3957/2014-Subhash Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided today i.e. 19.09.2014, has held as under:-

"5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference can be made in the process of contractual freedom of the second respondent, namely, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh, to invite fresh tenders from other security agencies (placement agencies) and it is for the respondent Zila Parishad to decide through which placement agency, the security guards are to be employed on contractual basis. The petitioner is not the employee of the State Government or the Zila Parishad, but they are the employees of the private placement agency, and on the basis of outsourcing of Security Guards'' services in pursuance of the Resolution of the Zila Parishad, such private placement agency is to provide the services of such security guards by way of inviting fresh tenders and entering into a fresh contract with another security agency.

The petitioner being the employee as security guard of private placement agency cannot have any objection in the matter; and even if the petitioner has any grievances against the private placement agency, he has the cause of action against such private placement agency, who is not ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner cannot claim any relief from the respondent Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh, of which he is not the employee. The afore-quoted interim order also clearly permits such fresh contract with placement agency. Therefore, no writ can be issued for the continuation of the present petitioner as security guards, employed by the private placement agency.

In view of above discussion, the present writ petition is found to be bereft of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned respondents forthwith."

Having heard the petitioners and the learned Addl. Govt. Counsel, the present writ petition is also dismissed in the same terms. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.