ANUBHA BHARGAVA Vs. UNION OF NDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is one of those 130 employees, working in different offices of the respondent-Airport Authority of India all over India, whose services were terminated, inter alia, on the ground that all these persons were appointed on ad hoc basis without any advertisement or calling candidates from Employment Exchange or following recruitment rules, which are required for any public appointment. Number of writ petitions came to be filed by all such employees challenging their termination on the plea that their appointments were later regularized after qualifying typing test or other tests and they were treated as regular employees. These writ petitions were heard together by a Division Bench of this Court. During the course of hearing, certain suggestions were mooted to resolve the problem as large number of persons were involved. After long deliberations spread over nearly three to four months, the parties were able to find an amicable solution of the problem and the Division Bench was able to dispose of the writ petitions on agreed terms with the following directions:-

(2.) THERE were approximately 200 vacancies and as 50% of these vacancies were reserved for those terminated employees, the Court expressed that it was sufficient to reassure those petitioners to have a fair chance. Direction was also given that entire selection process be completed within four months. Though the present petition was also included in the order dated 30. 4. 2007 whereby these petitions were disposed of on the aforesaid terms, the petitioner herein filed an application stating that as she was a disabled person, having visual handicap, her case would be on a different footing and, therefore, it was inadvertently disposed of along with other petitions. It was submitted that the matter was to be argued on merits. The respondents did not object to the hearing of the petition on merits and on this statement of the respondents, vide order dated 27. 7. 2007, it was clarified that the order dated 30. 4. 2007 would not cover this petition and as far as the instant petition is concerned, the said order was recalled. It is, in these circumstances, that we have heard this matter on merits.

(3.) WE may also point out at this stage that the petitioner had filed another CM No. 11764/2007 wherein she has highlighted the peculiar facts of her case, which were absent in the other cases. These are:-