Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other writ or direction to call for the records of the third respondent relating to the termination order, dated 23.07.2004 in Ref.No.E-I-4/04.EC IV (JTO) and quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioners as Instructors / Junior Training Officers in any one of the new courses including the Information Technology and Electronics system proposed to be started in the fourth respondent Institution, after giving necessary training. 2. The petitioners herein were appointed as Junior Training Officers / Radio and T.V. Instructors under the fourth respondent on 07.09.1990 and 29.08.1991 respectively by the third respondent by his order in Ref.No.ITI-1/90-91-MDS, dated 13.09.1990 and in Ref.No.ITI-1/91-92-MDS, dated 03.11.1991 respectively. The first respondent, by his letter in Ref.No.E.I-6/2003-Adm-ITI (AVD)-72, dated 01.08.2003 addressed to the fourth respondent, that it was decided to wind up the Radio / T.V.Mechanic course from the academic year onwards due to the poor response from students, as no candidate was selected for the aforesaid course. The third respondent, by his proceedings in Ref.No.E-I-4/04.EC-IV (JTO), dated 23.07.2004 terminated the services of the petitioners, as it was decided to wind up the Radio / T.V.Mechanic course from the session 2003-04. The petitioners have further stated that they had given representations, dated 02.08.2004 and 03.08.2004 respectively to the respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate them as J.T.O or any other related post in Radio / T.V.Mechanic course or in Information Technology and Electronics system maintenance course. However, there was no reply from the respondents and hence, the petitioners filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai on 23.09.2004, however, the Central Administrative Tribunal returned the aforesaid O.A with the endorsement that since the petitioners are employees of CRPF, the Administrative Tribunals Act does not apply to them and they have to approach the High Court. Hence, they filed the writ petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners have raised a ground that the impugned order is liable to be set aside in so far as the petitioners are concerned instead they could have been trained and observed in the Information Technology and Electronics system maintenance, however, they were arbitrarily terminated. Hence, they filed the writ petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners have raised a ground that the impugned order is liable to be set aside in so far as the petitioners are concerned instead they could have been trained and observed in the Information Technology and Electronics system maintenance, however, they were arbitrarily terminated. The termination order issued by the third respondent states that the appointment of the petitioners was purely temporary and would not be made permanent under any circumstance. However, as per the proceedings of the third respondent in Ref.No.DD (Adm) Signal No.A.VI.2/91-Adm-ITI (S/S), dated 30.12.1991 and Ref.No.A.VI.2/92-Adm-ITI (S/S), dated 18.02.1992, the petitioners were regularised / treated as regular appointments from the date of issue of the aforesaid order, hence, according to the petitioners, the termination order issued by the third respondent stating the appointment as temporary, without considering their regularisation of service is liable to be set aside. 4. The termination order issued by the third respondent in Ref.No.E-I-4/04-EC-IV (JTO), dated 23.07.2004 states that the appointment of the petitioners is purely temporary. Rule 5 of the CCS (Termination of Service) Rules, 1965 reads as follows: "the services of a temporary Government services may be terminated at any time by a notice of one month on either side by the Government servant or the appointing authority. The Appointing Authority has also the option to pay the Government servant his pay and allowance for a period of one month or for the period by which such notice falls short of one month and terminate his service immediately." 5. The termination order issued on 23.07.2004 by the third respondent states that services of the petitioners would be terminated from 30.07.2004 thereby giving only one week notice to the petitioners as against one month notice and the third respondent has paid one month pay in lieu of one month notice, as contemplated by the aforesaid Rule. Since the aforesaid Rule is contravened, the termination order passed by the third respondent is liable to be quashed. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners herein have challenged the order of termination passed by the third respondent. 6. Since the aforesaid Rule is contravened, the termination order passed by the third respondent is liable to be quashed. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners herein have challenged the order of termination passed by the third respondent. 6. The respondents herein have stated that in the appointment orders issued to the petitioners herein, dated 13.09.1990 and 03.10.1991 respectively, it was clearly mentioned that the appointment was purely temporary and the same was also not a Government service and that the services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. Initially the appointment was for a period of one year but the same be extended on year to year basis, subject to their satisfactory performances. CRPF Employees Educational Society reserved the right to terminate their services at any time before the completion of period of engagement. 7. It is further stated that one J.T.P. was handling MRTV trade having only two students trainees from 2000 to 2004 and the other J.T.O. was not handling any classes from August 2002 to July 2004. Due to the poor response in MRTV trade, the CRPF Educational Society, Director General, CRPF, NEW Delhi vide message No.E.I-6/2003-Adm-III (Avd) 72, dated 01.08.2003 decided to wind up the trade MRTV from the session 2003-2004, as such no candidate / students were selected / admitted to the subject trade for the year 2004 and the final test of the trade session was over by 29.07.2004. The services of Smt.Parvathy and Shri.K.Meganathan of MRTV are not required from 30.07.2004 AN. Therefore, under the authority of Rule 3.2.0 and 28.7 of ITI Rules 1990 in the capacity as appointing authority of JTOs, the DIGP for the Chairman, CRPF Employees Educational Society, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai-65, terminated the services of both the petitioner with effect from 30.07.2004 (AN) vide order No.E.I-4/2004-EC-IV (JTO), dated 23.07.2004. 8. The main defence raised by the respondents is that in the appointment order itself, it was clearly stated that the appointment of the petitioners were not for a Government service and purely on temporary basis and they could not be made permanent at any time without assuaging any reason and that the CRPF Employees Educational Society has got the right to terminate the services. Due to poor response in MRTV trade, ERPF Educational Society, it was decided to wind up the MRTV trade from the session 2003-4. Due to poor response in MRTV trade, ERPF Educational Society, it was decided to wind up the MRTV trade from the session 2003-4. According to the respondents, there is not illegality in terminating the petitioners from service. 9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners herein were appointed, as per Appointment Order, dated 23.08.1991 issued in the name of the second petitioner as JTO / Radio and TV Mechanic Instructor in CRPF Integrated Technical Institute (ITI), run by CRFP Employees Educational Society, Avadi, Chennai. In the order, it is specifically stated that the appointment is purely temporary and would not made permanent under any circumstances and the petitioner was also informed that the appointment was purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without notice or cause being assigned. 10. Learned Assistant Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted, it was also made clear by the order, that it was not a Government service and non-pensionable and therefore, the writ petition itself is not legally sustainable. 11. Per contra, Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there should be no unequal bargaining by the employer and waiver of fundamental right is also not permitted and further, as per order, dated 05.03.1992 in No.E.V.6/91-92-Prov, the petitioners herein and 12 others were subsequently regularised and therefore, they are entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. 12. In order to decide the maintainability of this writ petition, learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of this Court, Salim Ali Centre vs. Dr.C.P.Geevan, reported in 2010 (4) MLJ 1180 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court in a writ petition, in a case where the writ petitioners were terminated from service by the authorities, a registered society, has held that the termination was attacked on the ground of mala fides and as being punitive. In this writ petition, the petitioners have not alleged any malafides and admittedly, termination is not punitive in nature, however, after their regularistion, without assigning proper reasons, the petitioners have been terminated from service after 13 to 14 years of their service. 13. In this writ petition, the petitioners have not alleged any malafides and admittedly, termination is not punitive in nature, however, after their regularistion, without assigning proper reasons, the petitioners have been terminated from service after 13 to 14 years of their service. 13. In P.Jeyachandran vs. Director of Technical Education, reported in 2010 (2) MLJ 934 , this Court has decided the Ratio Decidendi that the existence of pervasive control of the State or the authority over private educational institutions would give a clear indication that such institutions would be amenable to writ jurisdiction. In the instant case, the authority is the Chairman, CRPF Employees Co-operative Society, Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Avadi. 14. In Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd., vs. Manorama Sirsi, reported in 2004 (3) SCC 172 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a contract of personal service cannot specifically be enforced and a court will not give a declaration that the contract subsists and the employee continues to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. An employer cannot be forced to take an employee with whom relations have reached a point of complete loss of faith between the two. This general rule of law is subject to three well-recognised exceptions : (i) where a public servant is sought to be removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (ii) where a worker is sought to be reinstated on being dismissed under the industrial law; and (iii) where a statutory body acts in breach of violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute. 15. In the aforesaid decision, it was held that an employer cannot be forced to take an employee with whom relations have reached a point of complete loss of faith between the two. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the employer and employees relationship reached a point of complete loss of faith, hence, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this writ petition. 16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the appointment order. Though the appointment was made for the Integrated Technical Institute (ITI) run by CRPF Employees Educational Society, it was issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police for CRPF Employees Educational Society, Avadi. 16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the appointment order. Though the appointment was made for the Integrated Technical Institute (ITI) run by CRPF Employees Educational Society, it was issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police for CRPF Employees Educational Society, Avadi. The subsequent order of regularisation was also ordered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, for Chairman, CRPF Employees Educational Society, Avadi, Chennai. By the impugned order, dated 23.07.2004, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, by Office Order in E-J-4/04. EC-IV (JTO), passed the order of termination. Paragraph number 2 and the operative portion of the order reads as follows : "And where as, due to poor response in MRTV trade, CRPF, Educational Society, Dte.General, CRPF New Delhi vide message No.E-1-6/03 Adm.III (ADV) 72, dated 01.08.2003 decided to wind up the trade MRTV from the session 2003-04. As such no candidate / students have been selected / admitted to the subject trade for the year 2004 and final test of the trade for the current session will be over by 29.07.2004. Thus, the service of Smt.B.Parvathy and Shri.K.Meganathan of MRTV trade and not required from 30.07.2004 A/N. I, therefore under the authority of Rule 3.2.0 and 28.7 of III Rules 1990 in the capacity of appointing authority of JTO's hereby terminate the services of Smt.B.Parvathi and Shri.K.Meganathan." 17. It is seen that after the appointment on 23.08.1991, the petitioners were working for about 14 years, they were regularised by order, dated 05.03.1992, which reads as follows : "In terms of DD (Adm.) Signal No.A.VI.2/91-Adm.ITI (S/S), dated 30.12.1991 and letter No.A.VI.2/92-Adm-III (S/S) dated 18.02.1992, their appointments are regularised / treated as regular appointment from the date of issue of this order, for all purpose except pensionery benefit as the ITI is being run by the CRPF Educational Society. Other terms and conditions issued at the time of appointment will remain unchanged." 18. On the aforesaid circumstances, after the regularisation, the respondents cannot go to the earlier order, dated 23.08.1991 and raise a defence that the original appointment was only temporary and the respondents were at liberty to terminate their service of the petitioners, without notice of cause being assigned, after 14 years of service, for no fault on their part. 19. As rightly contended by Mr.S.Silambanan, the learned Senior Counsel, waiver of fundamental right is impermissible. 19. As rightly contended by Mr.S.Silambanan, the learned Senior Counsel, waiver of fundamental right is impermissible. Similarly after the regularisation, the respondents cannot go to the earlier order and say that the service of the petitioners are not required due to poor response in MRTV Trade, CRPF Educational Society and they could be terminated, nearly after 14 years of service, for no fault of the employees. 20. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioners were appointed in the year 1990 and 1991 on temporary basis by the Deputy Inspector General of Police for the CRPF, as Employees of Educational Society. Admittedly, the petitioners were regularised in the next year and have served for more than 14 years, after regularisatoin. In such circumstances, in the absence of any allegation against the petitioners for termination, the impugned order, dated 23.07.2004, has been passed on the ground that they had been appointed temporary. After nearly 14 years of service from the date of appointment and regularisation, termination of service is punitive in nature, have the authority must follow the procedure, known to service laws. 21. In the instant case, simply the third respondent terminated the petitioners on the ground that their service are no long required, as there was poor response in MRTV Trade, CRPF Educational Society, Avadi, Chennai, hence, the order is against principles of natural justice and also not sustainable. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, I find it just and reasonable to allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to consider their reinstatement into service with continuity of service, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. However, considering the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and also the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that if it is not possible to accommodate the petitioners in the post of JTO / Radio and T.V. Instructor in CRPF Integrated Technical Institute, they may be accommodated in some other similar cadre. They are also entitled to continuity of service and other benefits, such as promotion. However, considering the length of time, no order is passed, directing the respondents to pay any backwages. 23. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 23.07.2004 made in Ref.No. E-I-4 / 04. They are also entitled to continuity of service and other benefits, such as promotion. However, considering the length of time, no order is passed, directing the respondents to pay any backwages. 23. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 23.07.2004 made in Ref.No. E-I-4 / 04. EC IV (JTO) against the petitioners is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners into service, either in the same service or alternative service and the petitioners are entitled to continuity of service and all other benefits, except backwages. Considering the length of time, no order has been passed regarding backwages, on the principles 'No Work No Pay'. No order as to costs.