RAJENDER KUMAR SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions were working in Airport Authority of India in different capacities for varying periods since 1994. The services of nearly 130 personnel working in different offices of the respondents all over India were terminated on the ground that they were appointed on ad hoc basis without any advertisement or calling candidates from Employment Exchange and following recruitment rules for any public appointment as required. The petitioners have challenged their termination claiming that ad-hoc appointments were later regularised after qualifying the typing test or other tests. Thereafter they were treated as regular employees. It was contended that the appointments were made by Competent Authority invoking the power to grant relaxation as admissible under the rules and in discretion of the Competent Authority. The petitioners also claimed that the termination smacks of political vendetta as most of the persons affected were those employed between October, 1998 to June, 2003. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents in support of their respective contentions on merits. During the course of hearing, suggestions were mooted to resolve this problem which affected a large number of workers. We are happy to record that, after deliberations which were spread over nearly 3 to 4 months, an amicable resolution to this out standing problem has been found. This has been possible on account of the constructive approach adopted by the petitioners' counsel as well as learned Additional Solicitor General and Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate to satisfactorily resolve and maintain employee and employer relationship and save careers of large number of workers whose services had been terminated, by adopting an approach where their past services are sought to be recognized without compromising with merit by subjecting them to a proper selection process as mandated by Recruitment Rules. As a result of the submissions made, response of the respondents, as contained in their letter of 28.04.2007 and intervention by the Court, the writ petitions are disposed with the following directions- ?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, notings 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.