VIJAY GOEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) TEN appellants in this appeal are aggrieved by the order dated 4/8/1995 of the central Administrative tribunal (for short "the tribunal") dismissing their petition. They had approached the tribunal seeking to quash: (7 the order dated 19-5-1986 modifying the dates of their regularisation as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) and (2 the order dated 27/3/1991 of the Chief Administrative Officer, Safdar Jung Hospital, New Delhi issued in pursuance of the advice received from the Director General Health Services, government of India, terminating their appointments as regular LDCs till regular candidates sponsored by the Staff Selection Commission took their position. The appellants who were working as LDCs in the hospital represented against the order dated 19-5-1986 which had been issued in suppression of the earlier order dated 3/12/1985 changing their dates of regularisation. Instead they were visited with the order threatening to terminate their services.

(3.) IT is the contention of the respondents that on the basis of memo dated 7-8-1982 received from the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms staling that special examination for recruitment of LDCs was scheduled to be held on 12/12/1982 for ad hoc LDCs to make them regular, a circular was issued in the hospital on 11/10/1982 requiring the 17 LDCs <PG>379</PG> which included the petitioners to submit their applications along with requisite documents by 13/10/1982 to participate in the examination and that in case they failed to appear in the examination on the specified date and time their appointment to the post of LDCs was liable to be terminated. IT is stated that 16 LDCs took the examination out of which only four qualified. The result was declared on 20/3/1983 and instructions were issued that the seniority of the finally qualified candidates may be fixed en bloc junior to the candidates who had been appointed as a result of 1981 Clerks Grade Examination. The petitioners nevertheless continued in their respective jobs. Trouble for them arose when they were put down in the seniority and ultimately when their services were sought to be terminated. IT is not disputed before us that the selection of the appellants was, not made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules or that regular vacancies did not exist against which the appellants were appointed.