SANDEEP AGRAWALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the products of a stale-mate created mainly in the wake of interim order passed by this court dated 15.11.94 in connected CWP No.4223/94 filed by Faculty Association of All India Institute of Medical Sciences to ward off application of reservation rule for appointment to faculty post of Assistant Professor in AIIMS. The order restrained R2-3 from giving effect to proposed reservation in regular appointment to post of Assistant Professor and these respondents, in turn, stopped selection process in compliance thereto and resorted to adhoc appointments.

(2.) This is how petitioners, 91 in number, were appointed on adhoc basis initially for three months and their orders of. appointment clearly stipulated that their appointment would be. subject to the regular appointment and that it would not bestow any claim or right on them to claim regular appointment nor would their adhoc services be counted towards any promotion or seniority or confirmation. Some of these were appointed as far back as in 1994 and some others as late as in 2000. They have accordingly put in varying periods of adhoc service ranging from one year to seven years and are now clamouring for regularisation of their services on the post of Assistant Professor. Are they entitled to it and could respondents 2-3 be directed to regularise their services is the question.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners Mr.Grover was at pains to explain that the petitioners were not back door entrants but possessed requisite prescribed qualifications and merit and were selected by duly constituted selection committee after vacancies were notified by R2-3 to various medical colleges/institutions. They were later appointed though on adhoc basis but against permanent posts and their term was extended from time to time and they were allowed to continue on the post without any break and were discharging the same nature of duties as their regularly appointed colleagues ever since, imparting teaching to both under-graduates and graduates and conducting requisite research, etc. He complained that they were being exploited and their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution infringed by not regularising their services though they were not appointed in breach of any rules or to meet any emergent situation by way of a stop-gap arrangement.