JUDGMENT : (A.S. SUPEHIA, J.) 1. Admit . Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned AGP waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent no.1 – State, Mr. Dholakia, learned advocate and Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters are heard finally today. The Letters Patent Appeals stem-out of the judgment dated 13 th February, 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petitions, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the present appellants, claiming the benefits of regularization and also challenging the action of the respondents in terminating their services. 3. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, are not in dispute, which read as under: 3.1 The appellants-petitioners herein are appointed with the respondent no.2 for a period of three years pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspaper in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16 th November, 2010. Being aggrieved by the communication dated 11 th June, 2014 written by the respondent no.2 informing all the District Development Officers that the services of 300 employees will be availed only upto 31st July, 2014, they had filed the captioned writ petitions for the following reliefs : “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus by holding that the selection of the petitioners to their respective posts was a regular selection, after following the regular process of selection and that they are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their appointment and their services stood confirm on their satisfactorily clearing probation period and that their services cannot be terminated in any manner contrary to one by which services of a permanent employee can be terminated. (C) Your Lordships may be issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of termination dated 11/06/2014 to terminate the services of the petitioners from 31/07/2014 passed by the respondent No.2 and further be pleased to regularize the service of the petitioners from the date of their appointment and further be pleased to give all consequential benefits, monitory and non-monitory inclusive of the full back wages. (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the termination order dated 11/06/2014 passed by the respondent No.1 which is to come into the effect from 31/07/2014, as if the same is not passed, and to restrain them to terminate the service or to discontinue them from 31/07/2014 and further be pleased to grant the regular pay scale or at least may be given as per to the Government Resolution dated 16/11/2010. (E) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and expedient may be granted.” 3.2 The respondent no.1 passed the Government Resolution dated 16 th November, 2010, by which the Scheme “Mission Mangalam” enforced by the respondent no.1 and also approved the organizational structure of the respondent no.2 by creating the following posts :- (i) General Manager (State) (ii) Project Manager (State) (iii) District Livelihood Manager (iv) Assistant Project Manager (District) (v) Taluka Livelihood Manager (vi) Assistant Project Manager (Taluka) The respondent no.2 - Gujarat Livlihood Promotion Company Ltd. is a Company registered under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The recruitment and setup of the staff and employees is governed by Government Resolution dated 16 th November, 2010. The appellants, after undergoing the selection procedure, were appointed by the respondent no.2 by way of contract for the respective posts. 3.3 The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petitions, which has led to filing of the present appeals. 4. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Ms. Aditi S. Raol, learned advocate has fairly admitted that though the prayer clauses referred to the regularization and regular pay scale as claimed by the appellants – original petitioners, the present appellants are primarily aggrieved by the action of the respondents terminating their services. He has submitted that it cannot be said that the appellants were appointed through back-door entries, but after undertaking regular selection process, they were appointed on contractual basis for the fixed period of three years. It is submitted that the appellants were constrained to file the writ petitions in view of the impugned communications dated 11 th June, 2014 and 31 st July, 2014 passed by the respondent no.2. It is submitted that the appellants were constrained to file the writ petitions in view of the impugned communications dated 11 th June, 2014 and 31 st July, 2014 passed by the respondent no.2. While referring to the communication dated 30 th May, 2014, he has submitted that the aforesaid communication specifically mentions that contractual period of the appellants, which was to get over on 1 st April, 2014, was to be extended for one year. However, by the impugned communication dated 11 th June, 2014, the respondent authority decided to continue the appellants till 31 st July, 2014. It is submitted that thus, when the tenure of the contractual period was reduced from 1 year to 31 st July, 2014, the appellants assailed such action by the writ petitions and the appellants were protected by the interim orders. It is submitted that by now the appellants have completed approximately 10 years of service and hence, the respondents may be directed not to discontinue them without proper assessing their work. Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has referred to the conditions of the appointment orders issued to the applicants. It is submitted that as per the appointment orders, the contract of the appellants was required to be renewed on satisfactory performance and since no such assessment of satisfactory performance is undertaken by the respondent no.2, the contract cannot be curtailed and they are entitled to further continuation in service for the period of three years. 4.1 Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has further referred to the provisions of Government Resolution dated 16 th November, 2010, by which the post of Human Resource Structure of Gujarat Livelihood Promotion Company Ltd., were formed and has submitted that the said posts were sanctioned and all the appellants having been appointed after the regular recruitment process. While referring to the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 dated 9 th September, 2014, Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that in fact the respondent no.2 has further requirement of 350 personnel in various designations and hence, the present appellants cannot be discontinued from services. He has also questioned the higher qualifications as mentioned in the said affidavit. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that in fact the respondent no.2 has further requirement of 350 personnel in various designations and hence, the present appellants cannot be discontinued from services. He has also questioned the higher qualifications as mentioned in the said affidavit. While placing the reliance on the judgment dated 24 th April, 2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal no.983 of 2017 of the Co- ordinate Bench, it is submitted that the work or the project undertaken by the respondent no.2-company is perennial in nature and hence, the appellants are required to be continued in service till the respondent no.2- company is in existence and they cannot be replaced by another set of contract- employees. Thus, it is urged that the respondents may be directed to continue the present appellants in service on contractual basis. 5. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, Mr. G. M. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with as the same is preciously passed. He has submitted that the respondent no.2 is a Company which has been formulated pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 16 th November, 2010 and accordingly, the appellants were appointed on contractual basis for a period of three years. It is submitted that the writ petitions themselves were ill-conceived as there was no termination of the appellants and they have in fact filed the writ petitions claiming regularization of service, which is impermissible. It is submitted by Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate that the relationship between the respondent no.2 and the present appellants is contractual in nature and all of them have accepted their appointments with the conditions mentioned therein. It is submitted that they all were appointed for a period of three years and hence, neither they can claim any right of regularization nor to continue them till the Company is in existence. Thus, it is urged that the present appeals may be dismissed. 6. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. It is submitted that they all were appointed for a period of three years and hence, neither they can claim any right of regularization nor to continue them till the Company is in existence. Thus, it is urged that the present appeals may be dismissed. 6. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent no.1 – State, while pointing-out the prayer clauses of the writ petitions, has submitted that the precise case before the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions was with regard to the regularization and claim of regular pay scale, which cannot be granted to the appellants, as they are not the Government employees and they are governed by the contractual appointment and as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 16 th November, 2010. She has submitted that the pleadings before the learned Single Judge and in the writ petition categorically established that the appellants have never premised their case on the issue of satisfactory performance as mentioned in the order of appointment and for the first time such argument has been advanced before this Court. It is submitted by Ms. Shah, learned Additional Advocate General that the appellants have been continued for all these years under the interim orders of this Court and merely such continuation cannot gave rise to their right of claiming regularization or regular pay scale or to continue them till the respondent no.2 company is in existence. She has submitted that the appellants have in fact approached the Court by filing the writ petitions with the prayers of regularizing them coupled with the challenge to the termination, which is ill- conceived. It is submitted that there was no termination effected when the writ petitions were filed and the respondent no.2 had only extended their period of contract and there was no cause for the appellants to challenge such action of the respondents by treating it as a termination. Thus, she has urged that the appeals filed by the appellants are required to be rejected. 7. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length. It is noticed by us and as recorded by the learned Single Judge, all the present appellants have been continued in the service in view of the interim orders passed in the writ petitions. 7. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length. It is noticed by us and as recorded by the learned Single Judge, all the present appellants have been continued in the service in view of the interim orders passed in the writ petitions. The interim order is dated 25 th July, 2014 and by now almost 10 years have passed and the appellants have continued in their services. No efforts are made by the respondents to assail the interim orders further or to get it modified. Thus, the respondent no.2 is the beneficiary of the service rendered by the appellants. 8. At this stage, we may refer to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 16 th November, 2010 issued by the Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, which stipulated of appointing various personnels, including the present appellants, on the posts. The Resolution mentions that the posts mentioned therein for Gujarat Livelihood Promotion Company Ltd., have been sanctioned. All the posts were required to be filled on a contractual basis for a fixed tenure of 3 years. 9. The relevant clauses of the Government Resolution dated 16 th November, 2010 are as under : “1. All posts would be filled on contractual basis for a fixed tenure of three years. 2. The Board of GLPC shall approve 3 to 4 levels under each category to attract experienced persons in the Company. These levels along with the compensation levels may be reflected in the Human Resource Manual of the Company. 3. Support services at State, District and Taluka level and positions of Assistant Project Manager (if required) at the state level would be procured through outsourcing. 4. The expenditure on establishment of GLPC would be provided as Grant-in-Aid from State budget after deducting amount received, if any from other sources including Government of India. 5. The Recruitment process for the above mentioned positions shall be as specified under the Human Resource manual approved by the Board of GLPC (Chapter 3 Recruitment and Induction Rules hereby annexed as schedule-I to this Resolution). 6. GLPC shall develop an incentive program for its employees separately which shall be submitted to the State Government approval. 7. GLPC shall submit proposal in respect of service conditions and allowances of its employees separately for approval of the State Government. 8. 6. GLPC shall develop an incentive program for its employees separately which shall be submitted to the State Government approval. 7. GLPC shall submit proposal in respect of service conditions and allowances of its employees separately for approval of the State Government. 8. GLPC shall, at the earliest, formulate its organizational goals and verifiable targets which will form the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Government.” 10. Thereafter, pursuant to the Advertisement issued by the respondent no.2, the appellants were issued various appointment orders, one of which is annexed at page 44, (Annexure C). The relevant conditions of the appointment order are as under :- “3. Duration of the contractual You shall be on probation for 3 months. If your performance is found to be unsatisfactory, on review during the probation period, your service may be terminated without notice or assigning any reasons or compensation. On successful completion of the probation period, your three year fixed term employment (FTE) contract shall commence. The three year FTE Contract is inclusive of the 3 months probation period. This Contract shall be (renewable) on satisfactory performance including achievements of targets and/or such other criteria as may be decided by the Management and on the basis of mutual agreement. Unless renewed, the contract shall stand automatically terminated on the expiry of period of contract without any notice or compensation. 4.… … … 5.… … … 6.… … … 7.… … … 8. Notice period You will not terminate your fixed term contract appointment without giving one month’s notice in writing or gross remuneration as indicated at 4 above in lieu of such notice. Similarly the company can terminate your fixed term appointment on one month’s notice or gross remuneration in lieu thereof. No notice or notice pay is required to be paid on either side if the contract assignment is terminated by mutual consent.” 11. Thus, the aforesaid clauses of the contractual appointment manifest that on a successful completion of probation period of a candidate, i.e. 3 months, the contractual appointment for three years of fixed term of employment i.e., (FTE contract) shall commence. It is further clarified that “this contract shall be renewable on satisfactory performance including achievements of targets and/or such other criteria as may be decided by the management and on the basis of mutual agreement”. It is further clarified that “this contract shall be renewable on satisfactory performance including achievements of targets and/or such other criteria as may be decided by the management and on the basis of mutual agreement”. It is pertinent to note that, it is further provided that “Unless renewed, the contract shall stand automatically terminated on the expiry of period of contract without any notice or compensation”. Thus, the contract between the appellants and the Respondent no.2 is governed by the terms and conditions of the resolution and the appointment order. The appellants cannot, as a matter of right, insist to continue in service beyond the period of three years, till the existence of the Company even if their service is found unsatisfactory. Having accepted the conditions of the appointment, they have to undergo assessment of their work performance. 12. The prayer clauses mentioned in the writ petitions, as mentioned hereinabove, relate to the regularization of the services of the appellants and also for quashing and setting aside the order of termination dated 11 th June, 2014. However, the undisputed fact remains that, when the writ petition was filed, there was no termination, but the respondent no.2 had extended the contractual appointment till 31 st July, 2014, and this Court had passed an interim order protecting their services, which has continued for all these years. 13. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge so far as the denial of the prayers of regular pay scale to the appellants are concerned since the appellants are appointed by the respondent no.2 on contractual basis and they cannot claim regular pay scale or regularization on a contractual post, even if the same is sanctioned, as the contractual appointment is only confined for a period of 3 years subject to further assessment of their work performance. Only in case the respondent no.2 - company finds that they have performed satisfactorily including achievements of targets and/or such other criteria as decided by the management, their contract can be renewed. 14. We may at this stage clarify that before the learned Single Judge the issue relating to the assessment of the satisfactory performance as mentioned in the appointment order was neither taken in the writ petitions nor in the oral submissions, and for the first time it has been raised before us. 14. We may at this stage clarify that before the learned Single Judge the issue relating to the assessment of the satisfactory performance as mentioned in the appointment order was neither taken in the writ petitions nor in the oral submissions, and for the first time it has been raised before us. In order to see that the issue is laid quietus, and no further litigation ensues, we have delved into it. 15. As referred hereinabove by now more than 10 years have passed and all the appellants have been continued by the respondent no.2. On the oral instructions given by us to Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Advocate to take sense from the respondent no.2, about further continuation of the appellants, he had personally emailed the concern expressed by us. In response to his email the respondent no.2 vide email dated 17 th March, 2025 has informed him that “at the most the company can require the HR Recruitment Agencies to engage those petitioners who are protected under the interim orders of the Hon’ble Court and are continuing, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria of company and requirements of HR Recruitment Agency’. A copy of the e-mail dated 17 th March, 2025 is ordered to be taken on record. 16. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.2 has engaged outsourcing agencies since the year 2019, as mentioned in the email. Today, the respondent no.2, in view of the aforesaid email, has clarified its stand that it may request such Recruitment Agencies to engage those appellants-petitioners, who are protected under the interim orders. Further, it is clarified that the Company would not be in a position to prevail over such HR Recruitment Agency to engage or continue to engage any of the appellants. 17. It is also an admitted fact that none of the respondent authorities made any attempt to assail the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petitions. No applications were filed seeking permission from the learned Single Judge to discontinue the present appellants from the services on the ground of unsatisfactory performance of their duties even after the engagement of outsourcing agencies. No material pointing out the assessment of duties/ work performance, as stipulated in the appointment orders of each of the appellants has been pointed-out to this Court. No material pointing out the assessment of duties/ work performance, as stipulated in the appointment orders of each of the appellants has been pointed-out to this Court. Since, we are not inclined to reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge disallowing the prayers of regularization or regular pay scale at par with the Government Employees, and since the submissions before us are only confined with regard to their continuation in service, and also in wake of the fact they have continued for all these years under the interim orders, we direct the respondent no.2 - company to assess the performance of each of the appellants and in case their work performance is found satisfactory, as per the clause of their appointment orders, the company may continue them in service as per their requirement. We also clarify that the appellants shall not claim any right of regularization or regular pay scale, since their pay or salary is governed by the norms of the respondent no.2 - company only. In case the respondent no.2, after fair assessment of the appellants’ service, is of the opinion that they are required to be continued in service, the appellants and the respondent no.2 shall enter into a contract, as per the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 16 th November, 2010. 18. With these observations the present appeals are disposed of. 19. After, the order was dictated, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has urged that the respondent no.2 may not terminate their services. It goes without saying that the assessment of the satisfactory work performance of the present appellants can only be undertaken when they are in service and there can be no question of terminating their services before such assessment is undertaken by the respondent no.2. The Respondent no.2 shall undertake and complete the exercise of assessment of satisfactory performance of the appellants within a period of three weeks. 20. In view of the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeals, connected Civil Applications also stands disposed of.