NHRC Vs. SHEENU SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, National Human Right Commission (NHRC), vide its OM dated 16.7.2003, invited applications for appointment of 06 Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) on regular temporary basis. THE respondents, amongst others were called pursuant to the applications submitted by them and were subjected to written examination and typing test. A panel of 22 successful candidates from general category and 05 candidates from OBC category was drawn up in the order of merit in February, 2004. Subsequently, temporary vacancies arose in NHRC on account of regular LDCs proceeding on deputation. Since, these were not regular vacancies, efforts were made to fill up these short-term vacancies on deputation basis, but, the selected candidates were not relieved by their parent departments. THErefore, 09 candidates, including the respondents in this writ petition, who had been included in the panel drawn in February, 2004 were offered appointment on ad-hoc basis. Subsequently, when regular vacancies arose, first 04 out of those 09 persons who were higher in order of merit were regularized against those vacancies. While considering the case of the remaining 05 ad-hoc appointees (respondents in this writ petition) for further extension, OM dated 14.11.2007 issued by Department of Personnel & Training advising against ad-hoc appointments to the extent it was possible, came to the notice of NHRC. THE OM stipulated that the Ministries/Departments could grant permission for ad-hoc appointment for one year and further extension of one year at a time upto 02 years could be granted with the approval of the concerned Secretary. Accordingly, the ad-hoc appointment of the respondents, who had completed 03 years of ad-hoc service was not extended beyond 31.8.2010. On the representation made by the respondents, they were re-appointed for a period of 06 months w.e.f. 7.9.2010, purely on ad-hoc basis, with no claim for seniority or regularization on the basis of such appointment. THEir term was later extended upto 6.9.2011, vide letter dated 15.9.2011, the respondents were informed that their ad-hoc appointment had not been extended beyond 6.9.2011.

(2.) THE NHRC, in the meanwhile, issued an advertisement to fill up 02 posts of Personal Assistant (PA) and 04 posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on direct recruitment basis. OA No. 3469/2011 was then filed by the respondents seeking a declaration that the action of the petitioner in not allowing them to perform duties w.e.f. 16.9.2011 was illegal. THEy also sought an order directing NHRC to allow them to perform their normal duties till their regularization was considered by the competent authority. THEy also sought quashing of the advertisement which NHRC had issued for recruitment from the open market.

(3.) MS. Jyoti Singh, the learned senior counsel for the respondents, however, defended the order of the Tribunal on the following grounds: