ORDER : 1. Since the aforesaid petitions arise out of common order dated 26.03.2018 and agreement dated 14.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) (Colly), they are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners have filed the aforesaid petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief (S) :- 3. In W.P.(S) No.3135/2018 “10.1. Issue an appropriate writ and quash the challenge the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 and the agreement dated 14.07.2016 (Annexure P/1 (Colly)), whereby the respondents have undergone an agreement absolutely dehors the policy/scheme of National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM), in an absolutely arbitrary manner reflecting an autocratic approach at the very face and then have issued a direction to the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 to send the details of the petitioners to the respondent No. 30 company, a private agency having no concern under the scheme otherwise, in order to grant them continuation of service, which may not be permitted to subsist even for a moment for being contrary to the scheme of NULM . 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ and restrict the respondents from commanding the petitioners to join/continue their services through the respondent No.30, a private agency. 10.3 Issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents to consider cases of the petitioners for continuation of service in terms of provisions of the scheme of NULM only and not otherwise. 10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of this case.” 4. In W.P.(S) No.2963/2018 “10.1A Issue an appropriate writ and quash the agreement dated 21.01.2019 whereby the respondents have undergone an agreement absolutely dehors the policy/scheme of NULM in an absolutely arbitrary manner reflecting an autocratic approach at the very face and then have issued a direction to the respondent nos. 4 to 7 to send the details of the petitioners to respondent no. 8 company, a private agency having no concern under the scheme otherwise in order to grant them continuation of service which may not be permitted to subsist even for a moment contrary to the scheme of NULM. 10.2. Issue an appropriate writ and restrict the respondents from commanding the petitioners to join/continue their services through the respondent No.8, a private agency. 10.3 Issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents to consider cases of the petitioners for continuation of service in terms of provisions of the scheme of NULM only and not otherwise. 10.2. Issue an appropriate writ and restrict the respondents from commanding the petitioners to join/continue their services through the respondent No.8, a private agency. 10.3 Issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents to consider cases of the petitioners for continuation of service in terms of provisions of the scheme of NULM only and not otherwise. 10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of this case.” 5. In W.P.(S) No.3448/2018 “i) Issue appropriate writ and quash the challenge the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 and the agreement dated 14.07.2016, (Annexure P/1 (Colly), whereby the respondents have undergone an agreement absolutely dehors the policy/scheme of National urban Livelihood Mission (NULM), in an absolutely arbitrary manner reflecting an autocratic approach at the very face and then have issued a direction to the respondent No 4 to 7 to send the details of the petitioners to the respondent No. 8 company, a private agency having no concern under the scheme otherwise, in order to grant them continuation of service, which may not be permitted to subsist even for a moment for begin contrary to the scheme of NULM. ii) Issue an appropriate writ and restrict the respondents from commanding the petitioners to join/continue their services through the respondent No.8, a private agency. iii) Issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents to consider cases of the petitioners for continuation of service in terms of provisions of the scheme of NULM only and not otherwise. 10.(v) Issue an appropriate writ and quash the agreement dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure P/15), whereby, the respondents have undergone an agreement absolutely dehors the policy/scheme of National urban Livelihood Mission (NULM), in an absolutely arbitrary manner reflecting an autocratic approach at the very face and then have issued a direction to the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 to send the details of the petitioners to the respondent No.9 company, a private agency having no concern under the scheme otherwise, in order to grant them continuation of service, which may not be permitted to subsist even for a moment for begin contrary to the scheme of NULM. iv) Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of this case.” 6. In W.P.(S) No.3687/2018. iv) Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of this case.” 6. In W.P.(S) No.3687/2018. “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ and quashing the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 and the agreement dated 14.07.2016 [Annexure P-1] [Colly.] whereby the respondents have undergone an agreement absolutely dehors the policy/scheme of National Urban Livelihood Mission [NULM], in an absolutely arbitrary manner reflecting an autocratic approach at the very face and then have issued a direction to the respondents No. 4 to 7 to send the details of the petitioners to the respondent No.8 company, a private agency having no concern under the scheme otherwise, in order to grant them continuation of service, which may not be permitted to subsist even for a moment for being contrary to the scheme of NULM. 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ and restrict the respondents from commanding the petitioners to join/continue their services through the respondent No.8 private agency. 10.3 Issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents to consider cases of the petitioners for continuation of service in terms of provisions of the scheme of NULM only and not otherwise. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, may also be granted to the petitioners.” 7. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners in the aforesaid petitioners, are that that the Government of India introduced a welfare scheme of Urban Basic Service for Poor (UBSP) in order to promote the self employment in urban areas in early 90s. The scheme was to be implemented in all the states through its machinery/staff for which necessary funds were sanctioned and granted in the ratio of 75:25 by the Government of India. The scheme was continued on yearly basis and was replaced with certain betterment/modification with another scheme of Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojna (for short ‘the SJSRY’) and then with the same of National Urban Livelihood Mission (for short ‘the NULM’) in the ration of 60:40 for the Central and State Government. All these schemes were majorly funded/ sponsored by the Government of India and almost all the expenses including that of deployment of staff appointed on yearly contract basis were borne by it only, however, the appointments of staff at different posts (set-up) are governed by the State Government in view of performance of the candidates. All these schemes were majorly funded/ sponsored by the Government of India and almost all the expenses including that of deployment of staff appointed on yearly contract basis were borne by it only, however, the appointments of staff at different posts (set-up) are governed by the State Government in view of performance of the candidates. The petitioners were according to the scheme only appointed as Community Organisers (for short ‘COs’) vide different orders and their service contracts were extended from time to time on yearly contract basis without any break. According to the petitioners, the Office Memorandum dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure P/3), issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, brought into force the same as a successor of the earlier prevailing scheme of SJSRY under the 12th Five Year Plan. The NULM (Operational Guidelines) mandates the salient features of the scheme including prescription relating to its entire functioning. The Administration and Implementation structure under the scheme of NULM mandated in its Clause 3 for establishment of a National Mission Management Unit (NMMU) at the national level in support of a Mission Director. The NMMU is to be duly staffed with technical experts in social infrastructure. Further, as per Clause 4, at State level, a State Mission Management Unit (SMMU) was established in support of a State Mission Director. Similarly, as per Clause 5, at the city level the NULM activities was to be implemented through Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). To implement the functions under the scheme, City Mission Management Units (CMMUs) was to be formed headed by a City Project Officer (CPO), who will be so appointed by the State Government/ULB. According to the petitioner, the scheme further depicts appointment of Community Organisers (COS) in the city and States for each of the CO to cover at least 3000 urban poor families. The scheme states for recruitment of COs at city level subject to availability of funds. The Annexure-V appended to the scheme postulates for the Terms of Reference (TOR) for COs in a way that it would be a contractual engagement initially for two years and its renewal would be based on performance appraisal. The incumbent will report to the City Project Officer, CMMU or any other official assigned by him. 8. The Annexure-V appended to the scheme postulates for the Terms of Reference (TOR) for COs in a way that it would be a contractual engagement initially for two years and its renewal would be based on performance appraisal. The incumbent will report to the City Project Officer, CMMU or any other official assigned by him. 8. The scheme of the NULM brought into force by the Government of India bearing its guidelines governing the pattern of work under it, the set up of staff under the same and all aspects incidental thereto. According to the petitioner, the State Governments are duty bound to discharge the function under it in exact terms of it and are not free to act otherwise. 9. According to the petitioners, the scheme nowhere provides for appointment of the COs by any agency other than the State Government or the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). However, the respondents did not hesitate from executing an agreement dated 14.07.2016 (Part of Annexure P/1) for a period of two years thereby appointing the City Project Officer, Deendayal Antyoday Yojna, - National Urban Livelihood Mission of respective District, an agency to supply manpower including COs. Pursuant to the execution of agreement, vide work-order dated 30.07.2016, the Respondent-Mission Manager, Deendayal Antyoday Yojna – National Urban Livelihood Mission of respective district were asked to deploy manpower in different categories including that of Cos. 10. According to the petitioners, the practice of execution of the contract agreement followed by work-order led to issuance of orders for continuation of contractual employment by the concerned City Project Officers in all the cities containing instructions paradoxical in nature since it on one hand stated that the COs were granted continuation and, on the other hand, observed that COs will be appointed through placement agency and the conditions imposed by it would be required by the COs to be accepted. 11. Being aggrieved by this, the COs large in numbers preferred writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court challenging such paradoxical terms and conditions in the order of their continuation in service, wherein this Hon'ble Court was pleased to take cognizance and ask the respondents to file reply with an observation that the validity of the conditions so imposed would be subjected to final outcome of the writ petitions. The petitioners in order to fortify the contention of lack of authority on part of the State Government or its instrumentalities to get the COs appointed through a private agency respectfully refers to the letter dated 25.02.2017 sent by the respondent – State Urban Development authority (SUDA) to the Union Ministry, much after issuance of notices in the aforesaid writ petitions by this Hon'ble Court, seeking clarification to the term "contractual engagement" as also to the situation as to whether it will permit the deployment of COs through an external manpower consultancy agency. This communication reveals the fact unambiguously that even much after the execution of agreement and issuance of work-order, subsequent to an eye wash of a detailed tender process as well the respondents were not sure of the authority being vested with it to get the services of the COs through a private agency, meaning thereby that the whole process of bringing an outside agency into frame thereby jeopardising the petitioners (COs) for hidden gains of the respondents is dehors the scheme and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. However, the batch of petitions was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide a common order dated 14.12.2017, directing the respondents to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners for regularisation as per scheme governing the same. As such, the issue involved in the said writ petitions remained open to be decided in an appropriate stage and occasion. While forcing the petitioners and all COs the respondents even restricted the payment of petitioners’ salaries for about one year and, in the meanwhile, issued a letter dated 12/13.06.2017 saying that excluding those who had preferred writ petitions before the High Court, details of rest of the COs be sent to the respondent – City Project Officer, Deendayal Antyoday Yojna. The COS deployed in different places have preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) 6868/2017 seeking payment of their salaries for about one year, which is pending before this Hon'ble Court for consideration. The COS deployed in different places have preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) 6868/2017 seeking payment of their salaries for about one year, which is pending before this Hon'ble Court for consideration. The cause of action having arisen for the petitioners now is the issuance of the letter dated 26.03.2018 (Part of Annexure P/1) whereby the respondent – State Urban Development Authority (SUDA) has asked all the CPOs not to permit the COs to work and discharge their duties till the personal and bank details of the COs are sent to the respondent – Rajhans Consultants and Technocrat Pvt. Ltd. Pursuant to the above, the petitioners had been informed by their Reporting Officer, i.e. the City Project Officer to comply the direction in the aforesaid letter or to leave the job. According to the petitioner, the mileage extracted by the COs all over the State for the writ petitions preferred by petitioners challenging the paradoxical conditions in the order of continuation of service having exhausted in view of remaining no writ petition pending for now the respondents have adopted an arm twisting method constraining the petitioners (COS) to join the services through the respondent – Rajhans Consultants and Technocrat Pvt. Ltd., which is otherwise not permissible at all under the schemes. According to the petitioner, present is apparently a case of colourable exercise of power by the respondents. Hence, these petitions. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submits that the action impugned i.e. firstly executing the agreement dehors the scheme of the NULM and then issuing the order dated 26.03.2018 (which forms part of Annexure P/1) is in complete violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. The agreement executed between the respondents towards supply of manpower including that of COs being absolutely alien to the scheme of NULM, a majorly Government of India funded scheme, absolutely illegal and thus unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that the agreement executed between the respondents towards supply of manpower including that of COs is unreasonable, unfair and absolutely bad in law, which requires interference of this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the agreement executed between the respondents towards supply of manpower including that of COs is unreasonable, unfair and absolutely bad in law, which requires interference of this Court. The conduct of the respondents forcing the petitioners as also all the COs to join service through the respondent – Rajhans Consultants and Technocrat Pvt. Ltd., private agency, having no foundation under the scheme, is absolutely nonviable and a misplaced concept in order to fulfill certain hidden gains of the respondents. The scheme of NULM providing for the City Project Officer or any other official assigned by him as the person to whom the COs will report, it is not open for the respondents to bring some private agency into frame in the said capacity dehors the mandate of scheme. 14. Learned counsel also submits that the letter dated 25.02.2017 sent by respondent – State Urban Development Authority (SUDA) much after filing of earlier series of writ petitions seeking clarifications from the Union Government reveals that even by such date the respondents were not assured of the authority vested with it for executing the impugned agreement. The issuance of the letter dated 26.03.2018 as of now, i.e. after disposal of the series of writ petitions on a good faith that the cases of the petitioners and similarly situated persons would be considered for regularisation in accordance with prevailing policy for the same smacks ill motive on part of the respondents, since the same is used as a tool or coercive measure forcing the petitioners to join service through the respondent – Rajhans Consultants and Technocrat Pvt. Ltd. or their services would be no longer available at the whims of respondents, which in a democratic set up of governance has no place at all. 15. It has been also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the execution of the agreement and then issuance of the order impugned dated 26.03.2018 would defeat the opportunity of regularisation of the petitioners for which there remains a scope in view of a letter dated 19.06.2013 issued by the Department of Finance and Planning, Govt. of C.G., which has mandated for such consideration looking to the regular nature of work available with the departments. of C.G., which has mandated for such consideration looking to the regular nature of work available with the departments. Granting of continuation as also appointing the petitioners by a placement agency showing outsourcing of the work is nonetheless absolutely arbitrary since the same is done with a specific purpose to establish that the petitioners are no more employed even on contract basis by the State Government leading to removal of scope of their regularisation which the State is legally and morally bound to consider in view of the practice prevailing in various States of the country. The respondent authorities did not notice that the petitioners have served for long with no break in service, as such, they cannot be treated in the manner in a democratic setup of governance or in a welfare State. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.03.2018, agreement dated 14.07.2016 and 21.01.2019 are liable to be set aside. 16. Learned counsel for respondents - Mission Director and State Urban Development Authority (SUDA) respectively, strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submit that the aforesaid petitions are not maintainable in the eyes of law. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court disposed off the matter vide order dated 14.12.2017, wherein this Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners. The respondents, upon due consideration of the claim of the petitioners, passed an order dated 05.04.2018 (Annexure R-2 & 3/1). The petitioner deliberately did not challenge the final order passed by the respondents and has filed the aforesaid writ petitions with the identical prayers which was the subject matter of earlier litigation. 17. Learned counsel further submits that the Central Government through its Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation took a policy decision and framed scheme styled as Swarn Jayanti Shahri Rojgar Yojna (SJSR). The main object of the SJSRY scheme was to reduce poverty of the urban poor households by enabling them to gain self employment skills. The name of the SJSRY scheme was subsequently changed and it renamed as National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM). It is submitted that the Central Government is the major funding partner and the proportion of the funds allocated for the scheme is 60:40. In other words, 60% of the funds under the NULM scheme is contributed by the Central Government and 40% is contributed by the State Government. It is submitted that the Central Government is the major funding partner and the proportion of the funds allocated for the scheme is 60:40. In other words, 60% of the funds under the NULM scheme is contributed by the Central Government and 40% is contributed by the State Government. The Central Government being the major funding partner the answering respondents are bound by the guidelines, instructions and orders of the Central Government. The Central Government has framed the model guidelines named as Capacity Building and Training (CBT) Guidelines. The petitioners have themselves filed the CBT guidelines as Annexure P/4. 18. Learned counsel also submits that a policy decision for the implementation of the NULM Scheme has been taken at the highest level by the Central Government and in furtherance of the policy decision, the Central Government has framed the model CBT guidelines and the answering respondents is bound by the commands of Central Government. The petitioners have neither challenged the policy decision taken by the Central Government nor challenged the model guidelines and the petitioners have also not impleaded the Central Government as a party respondent, as such, the writ petitions are not maintainable for non joinder as necessary party. For the better implementation of the NULM scheme, the State Government has constituted an agency State Urban Development Authority (SUDA) vide Annexure R-2 & 3/3. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that as per the clause 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 of the CBT guidelines, the respondents are authorized to engage the services of an external agency to provide services of technical expert in SMMU and CMMU. The respondent submits that there was some confusion as to whether the services of the COs could be availed through an external man power agency, therefore, a communication (Annexure R-2&3/4) was sent to the Central Government for clarification. The Central Government through the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation replied to the communication and clarified vide Annexure R-2 & 3/5 that as per clause 6.3 of the CBT guidelines, the respondents are authorized to engage the services of Community Organizer through an external man power agency. 19. Learned counsel further submits that the service condition of the petitioners are governed by the Contract Appointment Rules, 2012 and the continuation of the services of the petitioners would depend upon the annual performance appraisal report as per the Rules of 2012. 19. Learned counsel further submits that the service condition of the petitioners are governed by the Contract Appointment Rules, 2012 and the continuation of the services of the petitioners would depend upon the annual performance appraisal report as per the Rules of 2012. The agreement and continuation of the services of the petitioners would depend upon the annual performance appraisal report as per the Rules of 2012 subject to their satisfactory annual performance. The petitioners have not challenged the final order dated 03.04.2018, whereby the claim of the petitioners have been rejected by the respondents. The appointment of the petitioners is strictly contractual in nature and the continuation of the services of the petitioners is always subject to their satisfactory performance in their annual performance appraisal report. The petitioners have not challenged the final order dated 14.12.2017 passed by this Court, neither the petitioners have challenged the final order passed by the respondents in-compliance of the order of this Court, as such, the aforesaid petitions are not maintainable. 20. Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that the State is formal party in these petitions. The petitioners are the employees of National Urban Livelihood Mission, and this scheme (NULM) has been introduced by the Central Government and the services of the employees of NULM is governed by the independent set of rules and not by the rules framed by the State Government. 21. In rejoinder, learned counsel for respective petitioners submit that the relief claimed by the petitioners in earlier writ petitions is different to that of the present writ petitions. In previous writ petition, the challenge was made to certain arbitrary conditions present in the order dated 29.07.2016 granting continuation of service for one year from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, whereas in the present aforesaid writ petitions, the contract executed between the respondent – Mission Director, National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM) and the respondent – Rajhans Consultants and Technocrat Pvt. Ltd., a private agency, and order asking the respondents – City Project Officer and Mission Manager of Deendayal Antyoday Yojna of respective Districts to send the details of the petitioners to the respondent – Rajhans Consultants, in order to grant them continuation of service under the scheme of NULM beyond the tenets of the scheme is under challenge. The letter dated 25.02.2017 was sent by respondent – State Urban Development Authority (SUDA) to Union Ministry, much after issuance of notices in the batch of writ petitions by this Hon’ble Court seeking clarification to the terms “contractual engagement” as also to the situation as to whether it will permit the deployment of COs through an external manpower consultancy agency reveals the fact unambiguously that even much after the execution of agreement and issuance of work-order, subsequent to an eye wash of a detailed tender process as well, the respondents were not sure of the authority being vested with it to get the services of the COs through a private agency, meaning thereby that the whole process of bringing an outside agency into frame thereby jeopardizing the petitioners (COs) for hidden gains of the respondents is dehors the scheme and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the act of respondents is mischievous and perverse interpretation of facts by the respondents, which deserves to be taken a strong note of by this Court. 22. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 23. Main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that according to the structure of NULM scheme, the State Government is duty bound to make appointments and discharge function under it in exact terms of it and are not free to act otherwise. The scheme nowhere provides for appointment of the COs through any agency other than the State Government or the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) midway. However, the respondents did not hesitate from executing an agreement dated 14.07.2016 (which forms part of Annexure P/1) for a period of two years thereby appointing the respondent – Rajhans Consultants and Technocrat Pvt. Ltd. as an agency to supply the manpower including COs. Vide work order dated 30.07.2016 (Annexure P/5), the respondent – Mission Manager, Deendayal Antoday Yojna – National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM) of the respective districts were asked to deploy manpower in different categories including that of COs as is clear from a bare perusal of the letter dated 25.02.2017 (Annexure P/6). 24. The petitioners have filed copy of letter dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure P/1). 24. The petitioners have filed copy of letter dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure P/1). For ready reference, contents of the letter dated 26.03.2018 is extracted herein as under :- dz-@9@lwMk@2018@9566 u;k jk;iqj] fnukad 26@03@2018 izfr vk;qDr@eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh] flVh fe'ku izca/ku bZdkbZ@uxj ikfydk fuxe@ uxj ikfydk ifj"kn~@uxj iapk;r ------------------- ftyk -------------------------------- N0x0 fo"k;%& lkeqnkf;d laxBdksa ds fujarjrk ds laca/k esaA fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd dsUnz@jkT; izofrZr ;kstuk&jk”Vªh; 'kgjh vkthfodk fe'ku ,ao eq[;ea=h 'kgjh vkthfodk fe'ku varxZr izns'k ds fofHkUu fudk;ksa esa dk;Zjr lkeqnkf;d laxBdksa dk fofRr; o"kZ 2018&19 esa fujarjrk fn;k tkuk gSA vkids v/khuLFk dk;Zjr] leLr lkeqnkf;d laxBdks dk okf"kZd izxfr izfrosnu dh leh{kk dj ewaY;kdu ds vk/kkj ij fujarjrk iznku fd;s tkus gsrq ck;ksMkVk] cSad [kkrk] IFSC dksM vkfn leLr vfHkys[k RCT, Bhilai dks fnukad 27-03-2018 rd izsf"kr djrs gq, vuq'kalk ds lkFk ,d izfr bl dk;kZy; dks Hkh izsf"kr djsa] rkfd ;Fkk le; mfpr dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsA 31 ekpZ 2018 ds i'pkr~ fujarjrk mijkar gh dk;Z djk;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA lgh eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh jkT; 'kgjh fodkl vfHkdj.k u;k jk;iqj] N]x] i`-dza@09@lwMk@2018@9567 u;k jk;iqj] fnukad 26-03-2018 izfrfyfi%& 1- dysDVj@v/;{k] flVh fe'ku izca/ku bZdkbZ ------------¼N-x-½ dks lwpukFkZ lEizsf"krA 2- la;qDr lapkyd] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] uxjh; iz'kklu ,ao fodkl ------------- dh vksj lwpukFkZ izsf"krA 3- leLr flVh fe'ku izca/kd] flVh fe'ku izca/ku bZdkbZ] -------- ftyk --------------------¼N-x-½ dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA 4- Jh@lqJh ----------------------------- lkeqnkf;d laxBd flVh fe'ku izca/ku bZdkbZ ------------------------dh vksj lwpukFkZ ,ao ikyukFkZ izsf"krA 5- Jh rksj.k 'kekZ] izksxzkej] lapkyuky; uxjh; iz'kklu ,ao fodkl u;k jk;iqj] dks viyksM djus gsrq lwpukFkZ izsf"krA 6- jktgal dalYVsaV~l ,.M VsDuksdzsV] izk;- fyfe- fHkykbZ] ftyk nqxZ] N-x- dks lwpukFkZ ,ao vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"krA lgh eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh jkT; 'kgjh fodkl vfHkdj.k u;k jk;iqj] N-x- </font> 25. The respondents – Mission Director and State Urban Development Authority (SUDA) have filed a copy of letter dated 14.03.2017 (Annexure R-2 & 3/5), which is clarification sent by the Central Government. The relevant portion of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is extracted herein as under :- “2. The method of recruitment/selection of an agency/organisation under the DB&T guidelines are under :- I. As per para 6.2 : Technical Experts required for the SMMU and CMMU may be recruited through open advertisement. State may appoint a Selection Committee headed by the State Mission Director for the screening and selection of Technical Experts for the SMMU and CMMUs. ii. The method of recruitment/selection of an agency/organisation under the DB&T guidelines are under :- I. As per para 6.2 : Technical Experts required for the SMMU and CMMU may be recruited through open advertisement. State may appoint a Selection Committee headed by the State Mission Director for the screening and selection of Technical Experts for the SMMU and CMMUs. ii. As per para 6.3 : The State may use the option of appointing an external Agency to provide services of Technical Experts in SMMU & CMMU, if it is felt to be the best option given the conditions specific to the State/city.” 26. But on previous occasion, this Court in batch of writ petitions leading case W.P.(S) No. 5902/2016 and other connected matters, passed an order dated 14.12.2017 and held in para 2 and 3 as under :- “2. This petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of direction for consideration of them claim for regularization, on the submission that the petitioners are continuing to work in the Mission for last 10 to 25 years without any break in service and it is submitted that exploitative terms and conditions of service are against the spirit of public employment. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that though at the Mission level, recommendation have been prepared and sent to the State Govt., the matter has remained pending without any decision. 3. The petitioners appear to be working since long ranging from 10 to 25 years. Therefore, this is an appropriate case where the State and other respondents in coordination should examine the whole matter and consider the petitioner’s claim for regularization taking into considering the existing scheme of regularization prevalent in the State. The decision should be taken within a period of 8 weeks.” 27. It is clear from agreement dated 14.07.2016 (which forms part of Annexure P/1) that this agreement has been executed between State Urban Development Agency (SUDA), Chhattisgarh and Rajhans Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. & as per condition No.4 “DURATAION OF THE CONTRACT” is initially for a period of two years from the date of deployment of the personnel in SUDA and can be extended further based on review from competent authority on same terms and conditions. 28. It is clear that now eight years have been passed and as per letter dated 14.03.2017 (Annexure R 2 & 3/5), Under Secretary of Govt. 28. It is clear that now eight years have been passed and as per letter dated 14.03.2017 (Annexure R 2 & 3/5), Under Secretary of Govt. of India clarified that the technical expert required for the SMMU and CMMU may be recruited through open advertisement, and as per para 6.3, the State may use the option of appointing an external Agency to provide services of Technical Experts in SMMU and CMMU, if it is felt to be the best option given the conditions specific to the State/city. 29. The petitioners did not point/clarified this fact that how this expert prevented their work and it is clear from letter dated 05.05.2010 (Annexure P/2) that the petitioners were appointed for one year and after that their services were purely on contractual basis. It is the apprehension of the petitioners that the respondents are trying to discontinue their services, but as per the agreement so executed, respondent – Rajhans Consultants and Technocrat Pvt. Ltd. has been appointed only for progress report of the petitioners, which is apparent from letter dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure P/1.) 30. In view of the foregoing discussion, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and letter dated 14.03.2017 of Under Secretary to the Government of India, (Annexure R2 & 3 /5), this Court does not find any illegality or or perversity in the action of respondents. 31. The aforesaid writ petitions being without any substance are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioners herein to file a fresh petition before this Court in case their services are discontinued by the respondents illegally. 32. The aforesaid petitions are thus dismissed. No costs.