Delhi High Court
Sumit & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 19 April, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2582/2010
%
Date of Decision: 19.04.2010
Sumit & Ors. .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate
Versus
Union of India & Anr. .... Respondent
Through Mr. Ruchir Misra and Mr. Rahul Jain,
Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioners, who were appointed as attendant on temporary
basis with the Textile Committee had challenged their termination by
the respondent in an original application being OA 2375/2009 titled Sh.
Sumit & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors, which was dismissed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench by its order dated 10th
November, 2009 which is challenged by the petitioners in the present
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners were appointed on temporary basis on probation
for a period of six months by order dated 22nd February, 2008 and were
posted at different places. Their services were terminated by order
dated 1st June, 2009.
Before the Tribunal, they had challenged their termination
contending, inter alia, that they had been working for more than 1 ½
years and since they were appointed after qualifying the requisite
formalities and after the expiry of the period of probation of six months,
it was not further extended nor any notice was given, so they had
become permanent employee and therefore, their service could not be
terminated.
The Tribunal had perused the files pertaining to appointment and
termination of the petitioners by respondent No. 2. From the file, it
had transpired that the petitioners were appointed irregularly by the
management of the Textile Committee which is a central autonomous
body fully funded by the Government of India for its operation,
maintenance and day to day function. It was also noticed that the
Textile Committee had to follow the Government of India Statutory
Rules and under the Scheme of Optimization of post for direct
recruitment, even five vacant posts of attendants were abolished and
final order was also issued by the Textile Committee. On 1st June,
2009, all the posts on which the petitioners were working had been
abolished.
The Tribunal has also held that there could not be deemed
permanent appointment after the expiry of period of probation of six
months as the order dated 22nd February, 2008, had clearly indicated
the terms and conditions of appointment stipulating that the period of
probation would be six months, which could be extended or curtailed at
the discretion of the appointing authority.
It had also transpired before the Tribunal that on the basis of a
note that by letter dated 29th March, 2007, considering the work load,
Textile Committee had referred the five vacant posts of attendant under
annual direct recruitment plan-2006-07. However, Government of India
by letter No. 16/6/2007-A & MMTC(TC) dated 6th July, 2007 had
intimated that all grounds given for filling up for five group "D" posts
related to administrative work, i.e., file movement, dispatch work and
security were not justified. The Tribunal also relied on the fact that for
filling up the post by the petitioners there were no advertisements and
no rules or regulations were followed nor clearance and mandatory
approval of screening committee was obtained nor Committee
Recruitment Regulations, 1968 were followed and therefore
appointment of the petitioners without the availability of sanctioned
posts and without clearance of Government and was in violation of the
recruitments regulation of Textile Committee. It was also held by the
Tribunal that since, the petitioners were not responsible for
appointments made vide order dated 22nd February, 2008 and their
services were temporary, they would be governed Central Civil Services
Temporary Service Rules, 1965 and therefore, directed the respondents
to pay them one month salary and allowances as admissible to each of
the petitioners.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioners were appointed after following the due process and has
relied on Textile Committee, Office Order dated 17th August, 2009.
Perusal of the said Officer Order, however, reveals that no direct
recruitment could be made unless it had been cleared by the concerned
screening committee and approval conveyed by the Government.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any
document to demonstrate that approval was given to respondent No. 2
for the regular post. The learned counsel is also not able to show as to
how the appointment of the petitioners was in consonance with
Recruitment Regulation of Textile Committee.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel has
failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order of the
Tribunal. There are no grounds to interfere with the same.
The writ petition is without any merit and, it is therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
APRIL 19, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
„rs‟
