JUDGMENT 1. The present special appeals arise out of a common impugned order dated 13.01.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11156/2011 (Smt.Saru Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others.) and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11155/2011 (Soma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others.), whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents/writ petitioners were allowed, while directing the respondents to re-employ the writ petitioners (respondents herein), namely, Smt.Saru Bai as Head Cook and Soma Ram as Chowkidar or as a Cook within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order, with notional benefits of seniority since their termination. 2. Brief facts, indispensable for the present adjudication, are that the respondents/writ petitioners, namely, Soma Ram and Smt.Saru Bai are both husband and wife, who were appointed as Chowkidar and Cook respectively, in Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Aawasiya Vidhyalaya under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan with effect from 01.04.2000 and 26.01.2006 respectively. The appointments of the respondents/writ petitioners were made purely on temporary basis through a placement agency, namely Kaila Detective and Security Services. The services of both the respondents/writ petitioners have been discontinued with effect from 01.07.2010, while respondent/writ petitioner-Smt.Saru Bai was functioning as Cook and respondent /writ petitioner-Soma Ram was working as Chowkidar. 3. The respondents/writ petitioners challenged the aforesaid termination/discontinuance of their services by way of filing the aforementioned writ petitions on account of the fact that their services were terminated illegally and in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said writ petitions filed by the respondents/writ petitioners were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide a common order, which is under challenge in the present special appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has however, submitted that the respondents'/writ petitioners' engagement was made through the placement agency, namely, Kaila Detective and Security Services, and therefore, if at all, any wrong has been done to their employment, then Kaila Detective and Security Services ought to have been impleaded as a party to the writ petitions, and since the said placement agency is not a party to the litigation, the appellant/State is not responsible for making compliance of the impugned order. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further stated that without impleadment of Kaila Detective and Security Services, the writ petitions could not be pursued, and thus, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge could not be complied with by the appellant/State. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the persons have already been appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, who replaced the respondents/writ petitioners and such persons have been appointed on a fixed remuneration, as sanctioned there for. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further explained that the services of the respondents/writ petitioners were on job basis through placement agency and since there was no direct contract between the respondents/writ petitioners and the appellant/State, therefore, only the placement agency was responsible for any irregularity, if any happened. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants also explained that the placement agency had offered appointment to respondent/writ petitioner-Smt.Saru Bai as Head Cook, but she did not join, and therefore, other volunteer was engaged in her place. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants further stated that the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan does not have any regular cadre for Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Aawasiya Vidhyalaya. It was also averred that respondent/writ petitioner-Soma Ram also could not have been continued by the placement agency, as the qualification was prescribed for the post of Chowkidar, and admittedly, he was not possessing such qualification, and therefore, another qualified person has already replaced respondent/writ petitioner-Soma Ram. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners submitted that injustice has been done to the respondents/writ petitioners, as though the alternative appointment was offered to respondent/writ petitioner-Smt.Saru Bai, but not actually given due to non-communication with her, and also respondent/writ petitioner-Soma Ram could have been appointed as a Cook, and thus, their retrenchment/termination was illegal. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, along with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, we find that the crucial party i.e. the placement agency, namely, Kaila Detective and Security Services is not a party in the litigation, whereas every role, right from the appointment to termination is attributed to the said placement agency, and if at all any direction is given at the back of the said placement agency, then it would not serve the interest of justice. 12. 12. We also take note of the fact that the appointments of the respondents/writ petitioners, who are both husband and wife, as Chowkidar and Cook respectively, were on purely temporary and contract basis through the placement agency, namely, Kaila Detective and Security Services. Furthermore, Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Aawasiya Vidhyalaya being run under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan did not have a cadre post of Cook or Chowkidar or Helper, and thus, we find that no relief could have been granted to the respondents/writ petitioners. 13. The placement agency, namely, Kaila Detective and Security Services is not a party to the litigation and the person possessing the prescribed qualification for the post of Chowkidar has already been appointed on such post in place of respondent/writ petitioner-Soma Ram, and that, another person has already been appointed in place of respondent/writ petitioner Smt.Saru Bai, as she did not join the post of Head Cook offered by the placement agency, as mentioned above. Such persons, who have been appointed in place of the respondents/writ petitioners on contract basis through the placement agency are continuing and are being represented here by their learned counsel, who vehemently submitted that they are rendering efficient services and the respondents/writ petitioners could not have been granted any relief by this Court. 14. We also take note of the fact that in view of the nature of appointment in the present case, even if this Court may have sympathy towards the respondents/writ petitioners, but in the eventuality of the placement agency not being a party to the litigation, any adjudication in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners is not possible. 15. In light of the aforesaid observations, both the special appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 13.01.2014 passed by learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the respondents/writ petitioners stand dismissed.