UNION OF INDIA Vs. GURUCHARANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. B.P. Todi, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Mr. P.K. Tiwari, [learned counsel for the caveator-respondent. The caveat is discharged.

(2.) Factual matrix that emerged is that the petitioners were appointed as teachers in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan at Tezpur on adhoc basis from 1991. The appointment on adhoc basis in favour of the petitioners carries stipulation that the appointment was purely on temporary basis for a period of six months or regular incumbent joins the post whichever is earlier. Despite the appointment for a period of six months expires, the petitioners continued in the post on adhoc basis pursuant to the interim order dated 23.12.1994 obtained by the petitioners/respondent in Civil Rule No. 5188/94. In the interregnum, an advertisement was issued calling applications for appointment on regular basis and pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, petitioners also applied for the post and appeared in the written test conducted some time in the months of June/1999; but failed to be selected. Consequently the petitioners also filed another writ petition registered as W.P.(C) No. 4701 / 99 and also filed Misc. Case No. 40/2000 with the prayer for interim order to allow the petitioners to continue in the same post. This was done under seeking apprehension that since the petitioner has failed in the written test, their services may be discontinued by the authority. Civil Rule No. 4707/94 along with Misc. Case No. 40/2000 has been disposed of by this court on 12.1.2000 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner and also directed that regularly selected candidates be appointed by terminating the services of the petitioner/respondent. Pursuant to the aforesaid observations and on the basis of the select list, the adhoc services of the petitioners were terminated on 11.4.2000 by appointing the regularly selected candidates. This order of termination has been challenged by filing application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench with a prayer for quashing or setting aside the order of termination dated 11.4.2000 and also prayed for regularisation of the services. Learned Vice-Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for both sides quashed the impugned order of termination dated 11.4.2000 as according to him the petitioners have been continuing in the post on adhoc basis for almost nine years and although the petitioners stated to have failed in the written test held in the month of June/ 1999 considering the length of their services rendered by the applicants on adhoc basis, the learned Vice-Chairman was of the view that their services may be allowed to continue with the direction to take back the petitioners in service without back wages. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid petitions have been filed.

(3.) Before we advert to the other points, at this stage, we must make it clear that by now it must be taken to be the law that adhoc appointment is made subject to the regular selection and as and when the post is advertised for regular selection and if the adhoc appointee is successful in the test conducted by the committee it is well and good and in that case he/she should be appointed in the post held by them. If however the adhoc appointee fails in the regular selection, then they must also give way to the regularly selected candidates. In the present case the interim order passed on 23,12.94 had allowed the petitioners to continue in the adhoc post culminated in the final order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court on 15.9.1998. While disposing of the Civil Rule No. 518S/94 filed by the petitioners and other analogous matters this court held as follows:- L" In view of the above discussion and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and allow them to appear in any interview that may he held for future appointment. Though the special advertisement in question was only a one time action as stated by the respondents, in my opinion, that cannot prevent the authority to consider the case of the petitioners in allowing [hem to appear in the interview, if they are otherwise qualified.''