The document summarizes key points made across 13 pages in support of employees who were removed from their jobs on a project that was intended to run until 2026. It notes that the employees fulfilled all legal requirements for their temporary appointments, but that the project timelines were extended, indicating it was of a permanent nature. It also claims that after the employees were removed, some of the work was outsourced to a private firm at greater cost. Finally, it notes that the judge presiding over the case believes the employees' fundamental rights were violated and that if a similar pending case is successful, it would also help these employees.

1. At point18,page no 10,whole paragraphfrom line 3onwards(oursummary of appointmentshowing
that we fulfilledall leagal formalities…i.e Advertisement,testbyNTS andinterview),ANDEVEN UNDER
LAW 15 OF APT Ruleswe were appointedontemporarybasis…
At page 11 ,point19,line 6,7,8(exchequer loss),CDNSgave losstopublic/governmentfundsbyclosing
the projectwhichwasto run till 2026 as perwrittenproof inPC-1
At page 12 line 3,showsthatthe initial timeline of one yearwastill 2016,and the departmentextended
it to 2017 that clearlyshowsthatitwas nottimelinedforone year,infactitsextensionshowsthat itwas
of permanentnature andthe pointof departmentthatitwas time linedforone yearprovedwrong,so
the contract betweenemployeesandCDNSwasnotfollowedanditfavoursthe employeethatthey
were furtherextendedforone more yearindicatingthatthe projectwasof permanentnature till 2026
A page 12 and line 8,itiswrittenthatafterphase 1 ,systemwasrevamped(meansbrancheswentbackto
manual and backlogwascreated),whichwasnow againbroughtto IT because of our zeal andvigour
meanshard workinphase 2
At page 12 reference of PC1 was alsogivenafterline 13
At page 12 last line,andpage 13firstline,itswritten thatthe departmentisgoingtohire the project
employeesagain,whichmeansthatthe workisof permenantnature andtheywill againneedall these
employees..thenquestionarisesthatwhytheyremovedthem?,showsmalafiedintentionsof the CDNS
and Finance Ministry
At page 13,and point21,its nowon recordthat 222 branches(80of phase 1 and 142 aroundof phase 2)
are outsourcedtoBCI a private firm fromthe regularbudgetona greatercost thanwe were workingin
phase 2.We have the proofsof thismalafiedintentionsof CDNS.
At point22,page 13,judge himself issayingthathe wasa lawyerinBARand he believethatpetitioners
were exploited andtheirfundamental rightswere distorted
At point22 and23 we are elevatedtoa statusof casesalreadypendingforregularizationie Imran
ahmed.whichisagainagood jumpandsuccessfor the profile of ourcase.If Imranahmedwinsthenwe
will alsoachieve same relief