Delhi High Court

Shamsher Singh & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 May, 2011

Author: Anil Kumar

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         WP(C) No.21950-65/2005

%                        Date of Decision: 09.05.2011

Shamsher Singh & Ors.                                   .... Petitioners

                     Through Nemo

                                Versus

UOI & Ors.                                           .... Respondents

                     Through Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1.      Whether reporters of Local papers               YES
        may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?          NO
3.      Whether the judgment should be                  NO
        reported in the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the above noted writ petition seeking

writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30th November, 2004

issued by the Executive Director, Airports Authority of India

terminating the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners and for further

directions to the respondents to continue the petitioner on their

respective posts and also for further directions to the respondents to

accord similar treatment to the petitioners as has been accorded by

the respondents to those, who have been appointed on regular basis.

2. According to the petitioners, on the approval of the competent

authority, they were appointed on ad hoc basis to various posts

including the post of Senior Superintendent and Assistants, initially

for a period of six months. It was also submitted that their ad hoc

appointments were extended time and again, and in order to

substantiate their contentions they have relied on order dated 15th

January, 2001, wherein the extension of the ad hoc appointment of

the petitioner Anuradha was effected, on which the other petitioners

have also relied on account of being on the same footing. As far as

the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned it was contended that their

services were regularized by orders dated 13th March, 2002 and

30th April, 2001.

3. The petitioner further asserted that while working on ad hoc

basis, they had duly complied with all the procedures by furnishing

the requisite character verification, educational certificates, proof of

date of birth, etc. and that they had performed all their duties with

due diligence and honesty. However, by order dated 30th November,

2004, their services were terminated, which order is challenged by

the petitioners on the ground that the order has been passed

mechanically and the principles of natural justice have been violated

since their services were terminated without issuing any show cause

notice, hence they were denied the reasonable opportunity of being

heard.

4. The petitioners urged that the termination of their services is

based on unfounded, baseless, fabricated and concocted grounds

and the respondents have indulged in a hire and fire policy. It was

also contended that the petitioners have been exploited by making

them work on ad hoc basis for such a long span of time.

5. The writ petition is contested by the respondent contending,

inter alia, that petitioners along with about 133 employees were

appointed to their respective posts by the competent authority.

According to the service conditions as per the appointment letter, the

service of the petitioner could be terminated at any time without

assigning any reason/notice.

6. The respondent asserted that numerous complaints were

received by the Vigilance Department against the appointments, as

ad hoc appointments were in total contravention of the service rules

and the recruitment procedure, as these posts were filled on the

recommendations of several Ministers and important persons. Also

the posts which were filled were not circulated in terms of Section 4

of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies)

Act, 1959. Since the appointments were not made as per the due

procedure for the regular post, considering the various facts

including the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, services of all the

employees who had been appointed on ad hoc basis including the

petitioner were terminated.

7. As per the learned counsel the rules required that the posts

had to be advertised and reference had to be sought from the

employment exchange, prior to the appointments made by the

respondent, which was not duly complied with. It was also pleaded

that the petitioners did not face any competitive test/interview and

were otherwise not eligible as almost all the petitioners had crossed

their age limits. The respondents further asserted that about 28

persons were regularized though they were appointed initially on ad

hoc basis and on finding irregularities in their appointments and on

account of non-compliance of the procedure as contemplated under

the service rules and law, the appointment of all these persons too

were terminated collectively.

8. The other employees, whose services had also been terminated

had filed different writ petitions, in their writ petitions an order dated

30th April, 2007 was passed in WP(C) No. 18661-65/2004 titled as

„Rajender Kumar Saxena & Ors. Vs. UOI‟, wherein detailed directions

were given while disposing of all the writ petitions. The directions

which were given by the Court in the other writ petitions are as

follows:-

"1. Petitioner as well as other employees whose services were terminated on similar grounds would be given an opportunity for selection in the proposed recruitment of Group C and Group D posts.

2. For Group D posts, suitability of the candidates would be adjudged by interview and wherever applicable, a trade test for the specific occupation. Additionally, suitability may be adjudged on the basis of familiarity with office procedures, basic knowledge of reading and writing, identification of files, nothings thereon etc.

3. For Group C posts, a written objective test, which would assess the aptitude, General Knowledge, the job knowledge, proficiency in English language would be held. A Typing Test would also be held. However, those of the petitioners/terminated employees, who have qualified the typing test of the respondents earlier, would be considered for exemption. This would be applicable where the record of Typing Test passed earlier is available. In addition, candidates would be interviewed.

4. Respondents would make available 50% of the vacancies for the petitioners and others whose services have been terminated, subject to their qualifying the objective written/trade test. 50% vacancies to be filled based on the merit amongst the petitioners and others, whose services were terminated subject to their qualifying the written objective and trade test being selected in interview.

5. Age relaxation would also be made available to the petitioner and others whose services have been terminated. As regards weightage for experience and knowledge peculiar to the respondent organization, the same stands provided by provision of 50% of the vacancies being made available to them."

9. Pursuant to these directions, all the petitioners in the different

writ petitions, whose services had been terminated, had complied

with the directions given, except for the present petitioners and two

other petitioners whose writ petitions are also pending.

10. The other employees, who were appointed on ad hoc basis and

whose services were terminated appeared in the examination held on

28th October, 2007; however, the petitioners did not appear in the

examination. The respondents also contended that termination took

place in November, 2004 and thereafter all the posts have been filled

up pursuant to the directions passed by this Court. In the

circumstances, it has been contended that the reinstatement of the

petitioners is not possible as they were appointed on ad hoc basis