Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners entered into a contract of service with respondent no.3. A format of contract is placed on record as Annexure-2. Petitioners were required to work for respondent no.2. Service contract period was extended from time to time. The same, however, has not been extended beyond 30.6.2012. Learned counsel further contends that the respondent no.2 might have a right not to extend the contract of services of the petitioners, however, the petitioners cannot be substituted by other employees. In the case in hand, petitioners have been substituted by other employees.
Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Government Advocate, has put in appearance for respondent no.3 and states that the respondent no.3 i.e. U.P.Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam, Lucknow, has a panel of ex-servicemen. Respondent no.3 provides employees to respondent no.2 i.e. U.P. State Power Sector Employees Trust. The period of contract of service of the petitioners had expired. A Panel of persons was forwarded to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 has selected certain persons for providing services. In such circumstances, the petitioners have no right to claim continuance of service, particularly because services of the petitioners was on contract, which admittedly had expired It has also been pointed out that the respondent no.3 did not forward the names of the petitioners to respondent no.2 for selection purposes.
This court has taken note of the fact that the petitioners are ex-servicemen and, admittedly, were under contract of service, which had expired.
Be that as it may, let a counter affidavit be filed within two weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereof.
List thereafter.
Order Date :- 5.9.2012 A.Nigam