RAJENDER PRASAD Vs. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us, having taken voluntary retirement from Army, applied to the respondent-National Human Rights Commission ("NHRC") for appointment to the post of Constable. Vide Office Memorandum dated 30th April, 1996 the appellant was offered appointment on contractual basis on the terms and conditions stipulated in the said Office Memorandum. One of the conditions stipulated in the Office Memorandum was that the appointment would be on contractual basis for a period of one year from the date he assumed charge. Pursuant to the said Office Memorandum, the appellant joined NHRC on the same date. The aforesaid employment was followed by subsequent appointment/ extension for the period specified in the order of appointment/extension on the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter. One of the conditions contained in the appointment letter was that the appointment could be terminated on one month's notice on either side. However, the expression used in the order of appointment was "on re-employment basis". The appellant made representation seeking regularization of his services, but, vide letter dated 31st August, 2006 while regularizing his service till that date, the respondent simultaneously terminated his services with effect from that very date. His request for appointment as Constable was rejected vide letter dated 31st September, 2006 on the ground that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for the said post.

(2.) Being aggrieved from termination of his services, the appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 17436/2006. The said petition having been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 30th May, 2009, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

(3.) It is not in dispute that at the time the appellant was engaged/appointed for the first time, the recruitment rules did not provide for recruitment by way of direct appointment. The rules provided for appointment only by transfer/transfer on deputation. Therefore, as per the recruitment rules the appellant was not eligible for appointment to the post on which he was engaged on contractual basis.