JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for quashing of the letter No. 4027/Ranchi dated 3.11.2017 (Annexure-4) in W.P. (S) No. 6524 of 2017 served by the Deputy Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand and letter No. 3978 dated 31.10.2017, (Annexure-14) in W.P (S) No. 6538 of 2017, issued by the Joint Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby contract of the petitioners has been put to an end w.e.f. 30.11.2017 and also letter No. 4028/Ranchi dated 3.11.2017 (Annexure-5) in W.P. (S) No. 6524 of 2017, served by Deputy Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand by which a decision has been taken and further correspondence has been made for providing two trained Computer Data Entry Operators. Further prayer has been made for not disturbing the petitioners from the post of the Computer Data Entry Operator till the final decision of regular appointment is taken. It has been prayed that a direction be issued restraining the respondents from releasing/ relieving the petitioners from the post of Computer Data Entry Operator. It has also been prayed to initiate the process of regular appointment to the post of Computer Data Entry Operator and consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law by granting them appropriate relaxation of age in appropriate cases. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioners have been engaged on contractual basis in Commercial Taxes Department, Headquarter, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi as Data Entry Operator by the competent authority, such as Secretary-cum-Commissioner or Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary of the Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand in the year 2005 and 2006. Vide office order contained in Memo No. 3244 dated 19.12.2005, the petitioner No. 1 in W.P. (S) No. 6524 of 2017 was appointed by the Additional Commissioner-cum- Special Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi on the post of Computer Data Entry Operator on the basis of recommendation made by Jharkhand Space Application Centre, Ranchi on the basis of payment of Rs. 5,500/- per month on contractual basis. 3. The petitioner No. 2 in W.P. (S) No. 6524 of 2017 was appointed and is working since 2006 on the post of Data Entry Operator by office order contained in Memo No. 257/Ranchi dated 1.2.2006 by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department on the basis of payment of Rs. 5,500/- per month on contractual basis. 3. The petitioner No. 2 in W.P. (S) No. 6524 of 2017 was appointed and is working since 2006 on the post of Data Entry Operator by office order contained in Memo No. 257/Ranchi dated 1.2.2006 by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department on the basis of payment of Rs. 5,500/- per month on contract basis. 4. The petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 6538 of 2017 also were appointed as Data Entry Operator on different dates indifferent Departments of the State Government vide different office orders and they are continuously discharging their duties as such. 5. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 6524 of 2017 that vide office order No. 57 contained in Memo No. 1725 dated 17.5.2017, per month Rs. 18,190/- was ordered to be paid from 1.4.2017 to 31.3.2018. Further, an extension was granted to the petitioners vide same office order. Thereafter, to the utter shock and surprise to the petitioners vide letter No. 4027/Ranchi, dated 3.11.2017, the concerned Joint Commissioners, Commercial Tax Circles and the In-charge of Commercial Tax Circles were informed that the services of the petitioners have been extended from 1.4.2017 upto 30.11.2017 and thereafter, they shall stand relieved from the services, meaning thereby that the services has only been extended upto 30.11.2017 only. Aggrieved by such illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court by preferring the instant writ petitions. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent- authorities cannot act arbitrarily in a social welfare State and the State cannot be allowed to exploit its own employee in any manner. The decision of the respondents to discontinue the petitioners is wholly illegal and unlawful and the impugned letters are liable to be quashed and set aside. The impugned letters have been issued maliciously and only in order to punish the petitioners. 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, further submits that the liberty reserved by the Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand unto itself, to terminate the contract by giving a months notice and without assigning any reason, as contained in the affidavit given by the petitioners, is contrary to public policy and hence cannot be enforced against the petitioners. 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, further submits that the liberty reserved by the Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand unto itself, to terminate the contract by giving a months notice and without assigning any reason, as contained in the affidavit given by the petitioners, is contrary to public policy and hence cannot be enforced against the petitioners. The undertaking of the petitioners on affidavit to the extent as indicated above, being contrary to public policy and also being an unreasonable restraint on their fundamental rights are void ab initio. 8. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, further submits that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned orders is unfair and unreasonable and is a clear example of the unequal bargaining power of the State towards its employee. There is no requirement to discontinue the services of the petitioners after 30.11.2017. 9. It has been submitted that it is well settled principle of law that a contractual employee, though, has no right to hold the post, but, cannot be replaced arbitrarily by another contractual employee or through contractor's employee. The en-masse discontinuation of all the petitioners, at one go clearly smacks of mala-fide intention and shows complete non-application of mind. There is no any reasonable justification to replace the petitioners, who are still in engagement by another set of Data Entry Operators, who would be sponsored through JAP-IT. 10. It has been further submitted that the work performed by the petitioners is perennial and permanent and the manner of their discontinuation clearly smacks of unfair practice. The decision, if any, to employ Data Entry Operators through the outsourcing agency selected by JAP-IT is only a camouflage to oust the petitioners and can be termed to be a sham transaction. Only in order to give effect to their decision to discontinue the petitioners on account of an ulterior motive, the respondent department is contemplating in abolishing the regular post in a phased manner. The process of computerization and operation of computer is incidental to and necessary for effective running of the Commercial Taxes Department. 11. It has also been submitted that the petitioners have discharged the duties as a Data Entry Operator and their work is sensitive type which should ordinarily be done through regular employees of the department and the job is of such a profile that it is necessary to employ considerable number of whole time Computer Data Operators. 11. It has also been submitted that the petitioners have discharged the duties as a Data Entry Operator and their work is sensitive type which should ordinarily be done through regular employees of the department and the job is of such a profile that it is necessary to employ considerable number of whole time Computer Data Operators. The petitioners at present are admittedly working as Data Entry Operators and if they are discontinued after 30.11.2017, then the same will directly affect their livelihood and as also the dependent family members. 12. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 13. Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that for engagement of computer operators on the basis of need, Jharkhand Agency for promotion of Information Technology, Ranchi has provided guidelines vide letter No. 834 dated 24.3.2017 for all departments of the Government of Jharkhand, five Agencies have been selected for availing the service of computer operators on need basis. In view of the above guidelines in order to ensure financial uniformity it has been decided to disengage the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 6524 of 2017 with effect from 1.12.2017 vide Department Order/Memo No. 4027 dated 3.11.2017 and a common order vide letter No. 3978 dated 31.10.2017 has been issued by the Department of Commercial Taxes for disengagement of all Data Entry Operators working on contractual w.e.f. 30.11.2017. 14. Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned Counsel further submits that the decision to disengage the petitioners from the service as computer operators has been taken on the basis of recommendation by the Jharkhand Agency for promotion for Information Technology, Ranchi which is an autonomous body under the Department of Information and Technology, Government of Jharkhand and that the Jharkhand Agency for promotion for Information Technology, Ranchi has not been made a party respondent in the instant writ application. The petitioners have no right to continue in contractual engagement which is governed by its terms and conditions. 15. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioners need consideration. The petitioners have no right to continue in contractual engagement which is governed by its terms and conditions. 15. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioners need consideration. In the backdrop of relevant material facts borne out from the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justification for replacement of the petitioners who have been performing the same job over a period of time since their engagement in the respective departments without any complaint and to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. Admittedly, the present petitioners are going to be replaced by another set of fresh employee to undertake the same nature of work only for the reasons that they are sponsored by JAP-IT. The nature of work does not change. The initial engagement of the petitioners is also not in question on any grounds of illegality or irregularity. It has also been admitted that the job in question of Data Entry has not come to an end in the respective departments. In view of the aforesaid facts and the reasons, there seems to be no justification to replace the petitioners, who are still in engagement by another set of I.T. Personnel now being sponsored by JAP-IT. Since petitioners are still working and it is only under the garb of liberty reserved by the Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand unto itself, to terminate the contract by giving a month's notice and without assigning any reason, as contained in the affidavit given by the petitioners, is contrary to public policy and hence cannot be enforced against the petitioner. However, the respondents are taking steps illegally and arbitrarily to discontinue the services of the petitioners after 30.11.2017. It is not in dispute that the respondents are not in need of any trained Computer Data Entry Operator in view of the fact that by letter No. 4028/Ranchi dated 3.11.2017 (Annexure-5 to W.P. (S) No. 6524 of 2017) a decision has been taken and further correspondence has been made to that effect for providing services of two trained Computer Data Entry Operators. The petitioners are trained Computer Data Entry Operator and only as they have been appointed on contractual basis, steps are taken to throw them out of service by appointing another set of persons on the same post sponsored by JAP-IT. It is settled principle of law that a contractual employee, though, has no right to hold the post, but cannot be replaced arbitrarily by another contractual employee or through contractor's employee. 16. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 3762 of 2015 and other analogous cases and this Hon'ble Court allowed the said writ petitions with a suggestion to the respondent to undertake recruitment to such post in a regular manner as per any policy decision of the respondent-State taken in that regard. The relevant para of the order dated 6.1.2016 is reproduced herein-below:- "The respondent-Department would consider the cases of such petitioners who have been thrown out by virtue of impugned decision for re-engagement subject to availability of vacant posts in the respondent-Department concerned within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear the engagement of these personnel being contractual in nature, it would be governed by its terms and conditions. It would also be open for the respondents to undertake recruitment to such post in a regular manner as per any policy decision of the respondent-State taken in that regard." The view expressed by the Hon'ble Single Judge was affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in LPA No. 256 of 2016. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 292 has held as under:- "3. We have carefully looked into the judgment of the High Court and other pleadings that have been put forth before this Court. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular, appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular, appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. The course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. We direct that they shall be continued in service till regular appoints are made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly." Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Narinder Singh Ahuja and Others vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and Others, (2014) 146 DRJ 167 , wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under:- "75. In the opinion of this Court, since the respondents nowhere dispute that there is need for the performance of the work that the petitioners were discharging all along and there is also no dispute that the project and funding (for the project) would continue till 2017, the decision to discontinue the petitioners engagement is based only on the policy to outsource the contractual employment to a third party. The petitioners are not insisting on regularization, given the nature of the employment or engagement, which is project based. However apart from the decision to outsource engagement of contract employment to a third agency, there is no rationale to discontinue the petitioners' contracts. The justification that the employees engaged through the contractor are paid lower wages is arbitrary, because the "outsourced" or outsourcing agency would have to be paid its service charges. The lower wages paid, therefore, is, in effect, because of the charges/fees paid to the contractor/outsourced agency. The justification that the employees engaged through the contractor are paid lower wages is arbitrary, because the "outsourced" or outsourcing agency would have to be paid its service charges. The lower wages paid, therefore, is, in effect, because of the charges/fees paid to the contractor/outsourced agency. The facts of this case clearly reveal that even though the work is to be performed by contractual employees, the reason for discontinuance of the petitioners employment is not their replacement with regular appointees, but instead, with another set of contractual employees. The State/respondents cannot, in the circumstances of this case, say that discontinuance of such employment cannot be gone into by the Court because the petitioners were aware that their contracts ended." 17. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the letter No. 4027/ Ranchi dated 3.11.2017 and letter No. 4028/Ranchi dated 3.11.2017 [Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 respectively to W.P. (S) No. 6524 of 2017] and letter No. 3978 dated 31.10.2017 [Annexure-14 to W.P. (S) No. 6538 of 2017]. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation on the post subject to availability of vacant post in the Department. The respondents are further directed not to disturb the petitioners from working on the post of Computer Data Entry Operator till the final decision of regular appointment is taken. The respondents are also directed to initiate process for regular appointment through open competition to the post of Computer Data Entry Operator and also to give opportunity to the petitioners by giving relaxation of their age, if required, in appropriate cases, for participating in the regular appointment in accordance with law. Let it be made clear that engagement of these petitioners being contractual in nature, it would be governed by its terms and conditions. The respondents are further directed to undertake recruitment process to such post in a regular manner as per any policy decision of the respondent-State taken in that regard. 18. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 18. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.