The petitioners were appointed as Security Guards on contract basis. Ext.P1 is a copy of the advertisement that was published inviting applications to the said post. As per Ext.P2, the petitioners were directed to appear for an interview. The communication issued to the 2nd petitioner is Ext.P2. Ext.P4 is the proceedings by which the General Manager has appointed the 2nd petitioner as a Security Guard. The petitioners complain that they have been terminated from service. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that, the petitioners having been appointed after a due process of selection and appointment, they are not liable to be disengaged on a hire and fire basis. It is also contended that the petitioners are entitled to the protection of judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Central Inland Water Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly : Tarun Kanti Sengupta [1986 (3) SCC 156]
2. Adv.Sri.P.C.Chacko appears for the respondent. According to the counsel, the allegation is that the petitioners were not found to be at their work posts, upon an inspection conducted at night. Thereafter they have also not reported for duty.
3. Heard. No proceedings, issued by the respondent, disengaging the petitioners have been produced. It is said that, no W.P.(C)No.15227 of 2014 2 such proceedings have been issued. The petitioners have been engaged subject to the terms of Ext.P4. It is not in dispute that they are contract employees. Clause (5) of Ext.P5 says that, they are liable to be disengaged at any time. It is also stated in Clause (1) that, their engagement was temporary and on the basis of the contract.
4. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Secretary of State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1], the petitioners cannot claim any right for continued engagement, they being admittedly temporary employees engaged by the Society on contract. Since they have no right to claim continued engagement, no right of theirs have been violated or infringed, by their disengagement.
For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to entertain this writ petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. The same is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV