ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus or any appropriate writ declaring the inaction of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners to regularise their services as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioners and regularise their services as per their own rules and under the provisions of I.D.Act and direct payment of arrears from the date of petitioners relieving the respondents organisation after extension period. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: a) The respondents’ organisation invited the petitioners (walk-in-interview) and conducted interview on 02.11.2008 for the various posts including the post of Junior Artisan (Fitter) on contract for a period of two years to which the petitioners applied. b) Subsequent to the interview, the petitioners were appointed as Junior Artisans in skilled grade for a period of two years as per the notification issued vide Memo No.Adv.No.22/2008. The petitioners were given offer letter of appointment on 11.02.2009. c) The respondent authority called for the application with experience in their respective trade. The work discharged by the petitioners is permanent in nature and the petitioners have fulfilled all the conditions of the qualifications and experiences. The selection and appointments were done by the respondents as per the recruitment rules treating the petitioners as permanent employees. d) The respondents have extended their contract period further for a period of six months initially vide memo No.ECIL:PG(E): 5555, dated 07.02.2011. The petitioners came to know that the respondents are going to issue fresh notification for appointing skilled workers as regular appointment. In the event, the vacancies are filled up by the outsiders, the legitimate right of the petitioners would vanish and it will lead to gross violation of settled principles of law. The petitioners completed two and half years of service without break. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Section 25 of the I.D. Act. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The petitioners completed two and half years of service without break. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Section 25 of the I.D. Act. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, in brief, is as follows: a) Advertisement No.22 of 2008 was issued purely on contractual basis for a period of two years by specifying the terms and conditions therein and the petitioners accepted the said terms and conditions. The contract period was extended for a further period of six months. b) The petitioners were relieved in the month of August, 2011 from the service consequent to the conclusion of the extended period of contract. c) The petitioners are not in service as on the date of filing of the present writ petition. The services of the petitioners were engaged due to exigency of work for a period of time in the project sites that were awarded to M/s ECIL and the same is not permanent in nature. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. PERUSED THE RECORD 4. It is specifically averred by the petitioners at paras 3 and 7 of the affidavit as under: “3. It is to submit the Respondents Organization invited the petitioners (Walk-in-interview) and further, they passed the trade test and subsequently conducted interview on 02.11.2008 for the various posts including the post of Junior Artisan (Fitter, Electronics, Electrical, draftsman, Radio and T.V) on contract for a period of 2 years to which the Petitioners applied. Subsequent to the interview, the Petitioners were appointed as Junior Artisans in Wage Group IV for a period of 2 years as per the notification issued vide memo No. Advt. No. 22/2008. The Petitioner wrere given an offer letter of appointment on 11.02.2009. Since February, 2009, the Petitioners have been discharging their assignment duties to the outpost satisfaction of the Respondents and functional requirements of the organization without there being iota of remark from any comer of the hierarchy of the management. The Petitioners worked in the Respondents organization as Wage Group IV workers from the year 2009 to 2011 without break without complaint to the satisfaction of the management. 7. It is to not out of place to mention that the Respondents have extended their contract period further for a period of 6 months initially vide memo No. ECIL:PG(E):5555 dt. 07.02.2011. The Petitioners worked in the Respondents organization as Wage Group IV workers from the year 2009 to 2011 without break without complaint to the satisfaction of the management. 7. It is to not out of place to mention that the Respondents have extended their contract period further for a period of 6 months initially vide memo No. ECIL:PG(E):5555 dt. 07.02.2011. Now the Petitioners have learnt that the Respondents are going to issue fresh notification for appointing tradesman as regular appointment. In the event the vacancies are filled up by the outsiders, the Petitioners legitimate right to absorb into regular vacancies would vanish and, it will lead to gross violation of the settled principles of law. The Petitioners completed more than 2 ½ years of service without break. Hence, all the Petitioners are entitled for the benefits of Section 25 F of I.D. Act. Their services cannot be terminated treating them as temporary employees as it is contrary to Organisation Rules and natural justice. Further, the petitioners are also entitled for arrears from the date of relieving from the employment after the extension period is over.” 5. The counter affidavit filed by the Respondents No.1 to 3, in particular, Paras 6, 7 and 8 read as under: “6) It is submitted that the advt. 22/2008 through which petitioners were appointed reads as under WALK-IN INTERVIEW Eligible candidates are invited to appear for interview for the below mentioned posts on contract is for a period of 2 year (May be extended by one more year). At administrative Building, ECIL, Hyderabad -62 (Ph No. 040-27182222, 27182394) Interview date and time are given against each post. Candidates should bring all original certificates of academic, experience and came with a set of excess and recent passport size photograph. 7) It is further submitted that pursuant to the above said advertisement the petitioners were engaged purely on contractual basis by conducting walk-in-interviews as there was immediate requirement for specific projects undertaken by M/s ECIL. The said jobs were not perennial nature and the requirements were purely for a fixed period for the projects awarded to M/s ECIL. The petitioners were not engaged strictly, in accordance with the recruitment rules of M/s ECIL. The said jobs were not perennial nature and the requirements were purely for a fixed period for the projects awarded to M/s ECIL. The petitioners were not engaged strictly, in accordance with the recruitment rules of M/s ECIL. The recruitment rules of ECIL provides for preferable qualifications, experience, age, specified percentage of reservations SC/ST/PH candidates, conducting Written/Trade Test and also oral interview a duly constituted selection committee consisting of experienced officials from relevant field of trade to assess the suitability of the candidates for the permanent posts. The petitioners were not duly selected by selection committee strictly in accordance with recruitment rules of ECIL. 8) It is further submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 , has made it clear that before appointing of persons on a regular/permanent basis there have to exist recruitment rules or specific eligibility criteria laid down for the appointments, there must be sanctioned posts, there must be vacancies in the sanctioned posts, and finally there must be issued advertisement for filling the posts on permanent basis, so that there should be a level playing field of competition with respect to prospective appointees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further clarified the position in its subsequent judgments in the cases of (i) National Fertilizers Ltd. And others Vs. Somvir Singh (2006) 5 SCC 493 , (ii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. L. V. Subramanyeswara and Another (2007) 5 SCC 326 and (iii) State of Orissa and another Vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said cases has categorically held that persons who have been appointed for temporary periods or are temporary employees in posts, such persons cannot claim regularisation. In view of the settled legal position, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed in the present writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Petitioner has filed reply affidavit enclosing few documents and it is contended at paras 4 and 6 of the said reply affidavit specifically as under : “4. It is submitted that the Petitioners were working in a permanent vacancy which is per annual in nature. 8. Petitioner has filed reply affidavit enclosing few documents and it is contended at paras 4 and 6 of the said reply affidavit specifically as under : “4. It is submitted that the Petitioners were working in a permanent vacancy which is per annual in nature. In fact, the department in which the Petitioners were working has recommended to the CMD ECIL dt:30-12- 2010 that there was a need to observe the Petitioners who are working on a contract basis in view of (A) Smooth operation of a divisional activities (B) 11 employees were to be retired from services. (C) Two more products were added for production to the EVM production. EMSD department was assigned with the production of smart cards at Tirupati which required a lot of man power for smooth operation for which Petitioners services were required for smooth operation. Therefore, the above said reasons in the proceedings dated:30-12- 2010 that the Petitioners service were in perennial in nature, hence the allegations in the counter affidavit are incorrect. 6. In respect to Para no 6 & 7 it is respectfully submitted that the appointment of the Petitioners were in accordance with the recruitment rules which were being followed by the Respondents at that relevant time. It is further submitted that only after verification of their antecedents the Petitioners were considered and were appointed in their respective trades. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the jobs in which the Petitioners were appointed were not perennial in nature and they did not follow the recruitment procedure. It is respectfully submitted that till date since the Petitioners are being continued in service without any break in service therefore, the averments made by the Respondent in the counter affidavit is incorrect and without any documentary evidence. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 3 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.11069 of 2016, seeking to vacate stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Advertisement No.11/2022, in particular, at paras 7 and 8 it is stated as under : “7. It is submitted that as stated above, the petitioners herein appeared for interview only as per Advertisement No. 22/2008 for recruitment to the posts of 2. It is submitted that as stated above, the petitioners herein appeared for interview only as per Advertisement No. 22/2008 for recruitment to the posts of 2. Artisan on contract basis for a period of two years and no Trade test was conducted as such the question of passing through Trade Test does not arise and in any case the said allegation made in para 3 of the affidavit is hereby denied. Equally it is not true and not correct that they discharged their duties in permanent nature of jobs and the said allegation is hereby denied. 8) It is further submitted that the contract period of the petitioners was extended for a further period of six months and after expiry of the said contract period their services came to an end automatically. All the petitioners were relieved in the month of August 2011 from the services of M/s ECIL consequent to the conclusion of the extended period of contract. Their contract period was not extended thereafter. Therefore, there is no truth in the contention that ten petitioners are being continued in services regularly till date without any break in service and the said allegation is hereby denied. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION : 10. This Court opines that the plea taken by the Petitioners in the reply affidavit at para 6 that the Petitioners are being continued in service till date without any break in service enclosing certain Experiences Certificates and Service Certificates pertaining to the Petitioners which are beyond August 2011 is contrary to Petitioners own averments made at para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition where under the Petitioners pleaded that the Petitioners completed more than 2½ years of service without break and hence the petitioners are entitled for the benefits of Sec.25 of I.D. Act and further that their services cannot be terminated treating them as temporary employees as it is contrary to Organization Rules and natural justice and further that the Petitioners are also entitled for arrears from the date of relieving from the employment after the extension period is over. 11. The specific plea put-forth in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents at para 5 is that the Petitioners were relieved in the month of August 2011 from the services of M/s.ECIL, consequent to the conclusion of the extended period of contract. 11. The specific plea put-forth in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents at para 5 is that the Petitioners were relieved in the month of August 2011 from the services of M/s.ECIL, consequent to the conclusion of the extended period of contract. The said specific stand of Respondents No.1 to 3 is even reiterated in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents No.1 to 3 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.11069 of 2016, in particular at para 2 and also at para 8. 12. Though the Counsel for the Petitioners and the Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 referred to several judgments in support of their respective cases, this Court opines that in view of the very facts being in dispute, the applicability of the said judgments to the facts of the present case cannot be gone into at this stage. 13. It is also contended in the main counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents No.1 to 3 at Clause (g) at para 9, that the Petitioners have not submitted any representation seeking regularisation of their services in the Corporation and therefore the same is not pending consideration by the Respondents No.1 to 3 as alleged by the Petitioners herein. This Court opines that without there being any representation by the petitioners to the respondents 1 to 3 herein on record putting forth petitioners grievance with supporting documents for consideration by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, the relief as prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted and no mandamus s prayed for can be issued and the inaction complained against the respondents by the petitioners cannot be gone into or considered by this Court at this stage. 14. 14. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and the circumstances of the case and also the specific averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3 in paras 6, 7 and 8 and para 9(g) and also para 2 and para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondents 1 to 3 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.11069 of 2016 and also paras 4 and 6 of the reply affidavit filed by the Petitioners disputing the same and enclosing certain documents, service certificates pertaining to the Petitioners beyond the period of August, 2011 and contending that the Department in which the Petitioners were working had recommended to the CMD ECIL dated 30.12.2010, stating that there was need to observe the Petitioners who are working on a contract basis in view of smooth operation of divisional activities, in view of 11 employees being retired from services and in view of 2 more products being added for production to the EVM production and further considering petitioners’ specific contention pleaded in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition that the Petitioners are being continued in service as on date, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the Respondents No.1 to 3 herein, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order duly enclosing all the certificates in support of their claim to the Respondents herein seeking regularization of their services and for other reliefs as prayed for in the present writ petition and the respondents 1 to 3 herein to consider the same in accordance to law and pass appropriate orders with a period of four weeks thereafter duly communicating the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.