Delhi High Court

Bharat Gupta vs Uoi & Ors. on 9 May, 2011

Author: Anil Kumar

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           WP(C) No.21946/2005

%                       Date of Decision: 09.05.2011

Bharat Gupta                                               .... Petitioner

                      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 may             YES
        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 petitioner has 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 petitioner as Junior Attendant (Office) and for

further directions to the respondents to continue the petitioner on the

post of Junior Office Attendant and also for directions to the

respondents to accord similar treatment to the petitioner as has been

accorded by the respondents to those, who have been appointed on

regular basis.

2. According to the petitioner, by Order dated 11th January, 2001,

on the approval of the competent authority, he was appointed on ad hoc

basis as office attendant in the pay scale of Rs.2400-3300, initially for a

period of six months. According to him, his ad hoc appointment

continued up to 31st December, 2001 on approval of competent

authority by order dated 17th July, 2001. Later on by order dated 3rd

June, 2002, he was again appointed as Junior Attendant (Office) in the

pay scale of Rs.4400-6920 on ad hoc basis for a further period of six

months.

3. The petitioner was further given an extension of the appointment

till further orders, by order dated 30th December, 2002 and he had also

been given all the service benefits attached to the said post.

4. The petitioner asserted that while working on ad hoc basis, he

had been contributing to the provident fund under No. 26504 and he

was also subjected to Income Tax deductions at source. However, by

order dated 30th November, 2004, his services were terminated, which

order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the order has

been passed mechanically and the order of termination is colourable

exercise of power by the respondent.

5. The petitioner contended that the termination of his service is

based on unfounded, baseless, fabricated and concocted grounds and

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

contended that the petitioner has been exploited by making him work

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

6. The writ petition is contested by the respondent contending, inter

alia, that the petitioner along with about 133 employees was appointed

as Junior Attendant (Office) in the pay scale of 4400-6320 on 3rd June,

2002. 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.

7. The respondents asserted that numerous complaints were

received by the Vigilance Department against the appointments, as ad

hoc appointments were in total contravention of service rules and the

recruitment procedure, as these posts were filled on the

recommendations of several Ministers and important persons. The posts

which were filled were not circulated in terms 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 Office Attendants who had been

appointed on ad hoc basis including the petitioner were terminated.

8. Regarding the petitioner, it was admitted that though he has the

essential educational qualification, but on the date of appointment, he

was over aged and was appointed on the recommendation of an

important person. It was also pleaded that the appointment on ad hoc

basis was also contrary to the proper procedure. The post of Office

Attendant was a Group-D Post and in terms of Section 4 of the said Act,

the post had to be circulated through Employment Exchange which was

not done. The respondents also 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.

9. 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."

10. 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 petitioner and two other

petitioners whose writ petitions are also pending.

11. 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, petitioner 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 petitioner is not

possible as he was appointed on ad hoc basis without following the