K.S. SABU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in all these cases is substantially similar.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant in O.P.(CAT) Nos.1128 of 2011 and 22 of 2014 as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners in O.P.(CAT) No.3603 of 2011. The first two cases have been preferred by the petitioners/applicants before the Tribunal, whereas the other case has been filed by the respondents in O.A.No.631 of 2010. The facts and figures are referred to as given in O.P.(C) No.1128 of 2011, the leading case, except where reference is made separately, depending upon the context.

(3.) The petitioner/applicant was appointed as Tourist Information Officer at Thiruvananthapuram Airport based on the qualification prescribed in Annexure A1 dated 02/12/1986 on adhoc basis. It was clearly stipulated in Annexure A1 that the appointment shall be in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50- 2300 and that such arrangement will continue till he is regularised by the Staff Selection Commission. It is stated that the appointment came to an end and later it was renewed from time to time and finally Annexure A4 order dated 22/05/1990 was passed whereby it was extended until further orders. It was stated that the Staff Selection Commission conducted a written test and the petitioner participated in the process of selection for the post of Information Assistant, which was subsequently renamed as Tourism Information Officer. Though the petitioner/applicant cleared the written test, he could not attend the interview because of some ailment.