Delhi High Court

Mohd.Shamshi vs Airports Authority Of India & Anr. on 9 May, 2011

Author: Anil Kumar

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                           WP(C) No.3899/2006

%                      Date of Decision: 09.05.2011


Mohd. Shamshi                                           .... Petitioner

                     Through Nemo

                                Versus

Airports Authority of India & Anr.                   .... 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 petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition seeking

writ of mandamus 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 Khalasi and

for further directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to

resume his duties on the post of Khalasi, with consequential benefits

prior to the passing of the impugned order, also to regularize the

service of the petitioner and for directions to the respondents to not

break the service as per the impugned order.

2. According to the petitioner, by Order dated 19th February,

2001, on the approval of the competent authority, he was appointed

on ad hoc basis to the post of Khalasi in the pay scale of Rs.2400-

3150, initially for a period of six months. According to him, his ad

hoc appointment continued up to 31st December, 2001 as per the

instructions contained in Corporate Headquarters Letter No.

12024/8/01-EH by order dated 1st/2nd August, 2001. Later on by

order dated 8th/9th January, 2002, his appointed was further

extended upto 30th July, 2002.

3. Thereafter the petitioner was given further appointment till

31st December, 2002, by order dated 24th June, 2002 and

subsequently by order dated 17th/21st January, 2003 his

appointment was further extended till further orders by the

competent authority.

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

had duly complied with all the procedures by furnishing the requisite

character verification, educational certificates, proof of date of birth,

etc. and was even found to be medically fit for the said post.

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 that the

principles of natural justice have been violated since his services

were terminated without issuing any show cause notice, therefore he

was denied the reasonable opportunity of being heard.

5. The petitioner asserted 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 petitioner along with about 133 employees was

appointed as Khalasi in the pay scale of Rs.2400-3150 on 19th

February, 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 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.

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

the essential educational qualifications, however in terms of the

rules, the post 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 competent authority, the Chairman under its

delegated power could only relax certain situations like age

qualification and experience, on the recommendations of the

selection committee. However it was asserted that the Chairman

under no circumstances is empowered to relax the very procedure

prescribed for the recruitment of the employees, that too for regular

appointment against a sanctioned post. Hence, since the

appointments were ab initio irregular, invalid and void, therefore the

appointment of the ad hoc employees had to be terminated. 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