Dharam Paul Sharma vs All India Institute Of Medical ...
1999 Latest Caselaw 1134 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The writ petitioner, who was appointed as a Radiographer in the first respondent Organisation, has challenged the order of termination of his adhoc service. The case of the petitioner that could be cornered from the averments in the writ petition is as follows :

The petitioner applied to the AIIMS (first respondent) to be appointed as Radiographer. On 10.10.1979 he was appointed as Radiographer on a pay of Rs. 330/- p.m. in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 plus usual allowances as admissible to the Central Govt. servants purely on a temporary basis for a period of three months. This temporary ad-hoc service was being extended in the Research Institute. In or about in the year 1984, AIIMS allowed the petitioner for interview along with others for the post of Radiographer for 'RLU project under Dr. B.N. Tandon, Prof. & Head Deptt. of Eastroentrology, AIIMS. On 8.10.1984 a communication was sent from the Officer Incharge of the Project to the petitioner in the following terms :_

"Subject : Recruitment to the post of Radiographer for RLU Project.

Under Dr. B.N.Tandon, Prof. & Head Deptt. of Castroentrology, AIIMS.

With reference to your application for the post of Radiographer for RLU Project, you are requested to appear for an interview to be held on 22nd October, 1984 at 2.00 p.m. in the office room of C&C Section, Ist Floor, Administrative Block, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi -110029.

2. You may please note the following instructions carefully :_

(i) You shall have to bar travelling and other expenses yourself, for attending the interview.

(ii) You should please bring the Originals of degrees, diplomas etc. in support of your academic qualifications and testimonials etc. in support of your experience.

(iii) Your application has not been received through proper channel. You are advised to bring a letter from your present employer, indicating that they (the employer) have no objection to your appearing for the interview and in the event of your selection you should be relieved in time. Your candidature shall not be considered, if such a certificate is not produced by you at the time of interview.

3. You are further advised to bring a no objection certificate from your present employer, if you have taken any other employ-

ment after applying for the post at this Institute.

4. The receipt of this communication may please be acknowledged immediately."

2. The petitioner was not selected. On 27.5.1986 the petitioner was issued with an order appointing him as Radiographer again on temporary basis for a period of three months. On 29.4.1987 the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was put an end to and the order reads as under :_

"Subject : Ad hoc appointment to the post of Radiographer _Termination thereof.

In continuation of this office memorandum of even number dated the 16th December, 1986, on the subject noted above, it is notified that the services of Shri Dharam Paul, Radiographer (ad hoc) are no longer required w.e.f. 26.4.1987 (AN) he may be relieved accordingly."

3. The petitioner made representations and there having no reply the petitioner approached the Administrative Tribunal and thereupon as the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, to this Court. The main case of the petitioner is that he had been in continuous service and, therefore, his services cannot be terminated.

4. The first respondent had taken the stand that the petitioner ws appointed only on ad hoc basis and he was recruited to any post on the cadre in the first respondent Organisation and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue in service challenging the order passed on 29.4.1987. In paragraph 2 of the counter, the first respondent would state :-

"Paragraph 3 of the petitioner is a matter of record. It is correct that the petitioner's appointment under the said Research Unit known as "Raj Garhia Liver Research Unit" was extended from time to time and the petitioner worked under the said arrangement from October 24, 1979 to September 30, 1985 an ad hoc basis. The services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated at any time."

5. With reference to recruitment made in 1984, it is stated in paragraph 4 :-

"With reference to paragraph 6, it is stated that the recruitment to the Group C & D Posts is made by the respondent through Agency of Employment Exchange and the name of the petitioner was never sponsored by the Employment Exchange, while the name of the other candidates mentioned in this paragraph were in fact sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they were selected after the due screening interview. The respondent encloses herewith a list stating dates of the regular appointment of those candidates whose names have been referred to in this Paragraph".

Further it is stated :_

"Paragraph 7 is a matter of record. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed directly under the said Project for a period of 3 months. This appointment was made on a request by the petitioner, but, not through the Agency of the Employment Exchange. The Respondent submits that the existing recruitment rules for Group C & D post do not allow any regular appointment of the employee unless his/her name is sponsored by the Agency of the Employment Exchange.

With reference to paragraph 8, it is submitted that there was no link between the service rendered by the petitioner for the aforesaid Project and the services rendered by the petitioner under the respondents. Services rendered under the Project are outside the regular cadre of the respondent and the petitioner was appointment as stated above, purely on Ad hoc basis for a period of 3 months. This was petitioner's fresh appointment on Ad hoc basis with the respondent and he was not entitled to any benefits for the services rendered under the Project."

6. It is clear from the records the petitioner was appointed only on ad hoc basis and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right to the post.

7. I do not find any irregularity or irrationality in the order passed by the first respondent.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.