BHAGAT SINGH Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of all the aforesaid petitions as common issues are involved in all these petitions and similar grounds were urged before me.

(2.) In these petitions the petitioners have contended that the respondents have not complied with and/or blatantly violated and disobeyed the directions issued by this court in the judgment and order passed by this court on 9.5.1997 in various writ petitions including Civil Writ Petition No. 413/1994. Number of petitioners filed writ petitions in this court contending inter alia that the petitioners had been repeatedly approaching the respondents for their appointment in view of their empanelment in the select panel for appointment to various posts under the respondents. According to them all the petitioners were selected pursuant to the advertisement made by the respondents and they were empanelled, which panel was approved by the Competent Authority on 20.11.1990. It was also contended that although they had been approaching the respondents to give them appointment in terms of their empanelment and not to make any appointment outside the select panel, they were not appointed even on casual basis.

(3.) This court heard all the writ petitions and by order dated 9.5.1997 held the action of the respondents to be arbitrary in the matter of preparation of panel of casuals and directed the respondents to engage on casual basis for its requirement either for the purpose of ad hoc appointment or on casual basis firstly the persons according to the merit from out of the select panel prepared and approved on 20.11.1990. It was also directed that taking select panel as prepared and approved on 20.11.1990 as the base the respondents would offer employment on ad hoc/casual basis to the petitioners according to their merit in the select panel and the respondents would continue to engage them till posts are filled up on regular basis. In order to appreciate the directions of this Court the operative portion of the judgment is extracted below:-