JUDGMENT : 1. Pursuant to agreement dated 01.05.2012, the petitioner has been providing ATM caretaker services to the respondent. The said agreement was for a period of two years extendable for further period of two years at the sole discretion of the respondent depending upon the performance of the services provider. 2. On the expiry of two years, period has been extended from time to time by short spells. Finally on 22.12.2015, petitioner has been informed by the respondent that in view of decision of the competent authority, the ATM caretaker services from the petitioner shall be withdrawn with effect from 31.12.2015. Without challenging the basic decision as taken by the competent authority, the petitioner has challenged a communication dated 22.12.2015. 3. In the petition, it has been projected by the petitioner that the respondent without tendering process is likely to engage the services of some other ATM care taker which intention is clear from the communication providing for withdrawal of his services with effect from 31.12.2015. Otherwise, it is not possible for the respondent to leave the ATMs without caretaker. One of the clauses of the agreement provides for extension of the term. Petitioner has to be allowed till a fresh ATM caretaker on proper competition is engaged. 4. The respondent in the reply has stated that in fact, tender notice has been issued. Same has been challenged vide OWP No.1990/2014 filed by the petitioner. In addition thereto, it has been stated that the respondent has taken a conscious decision not to hire any service provider in place of petitioner till the tender process initiated vide tender notice Annexure-A to the objections is concluded, the respondent wants to save unnecessary expenses from hiring services till the outcome of the OWP No.1990/2014 filed by the petitioner is decided. 5. Amongst various other grounds which include ouster of jurisdiction in view of arbitration clause. 6. The first ground projected by the respondent that they are not going to hire services of any services provider till the tender process is concluded, thus apprehension of the petitioner i.e. the respondent will hire services of anyone in deviation of the normal procedures of inviting tenders is repelled. 7. Counsel for the petitioner still projected that how can respondent afford to leave the ATMs without caretaker which argument is totally misplaced as it is for the respondent to take care of. 7. Counsel for the petitioner still projected that how can respondent afford to leave the ATMs without caretaker which argument is totally misplaced as it is for the respondent to take care of. The petitioner cannot force the respondent to engage him for providing the services. It is the positive case of the respondent that the tender notice has been issued which has been challenged by the petitioner. On the one hand, he stalled the regular process and on the other hand by compulsion, he wants his services to be hired, which is impermissible. 8. Though in terms of the communication referred above, petitioner had not to provide services from the midnight of 31.12.2015 but on the strength of the directions of the Court dated 30.12.2015, he has continued till date. For such period whatever charges shall be due to him shall be paid to him by the respondents. 9. Viewed thus, the petition for the stated reasons does not survive for any further consideration, is accordingly, disposed of alongwith connected MP.