Their companytention is they have been regularly appointed as per statutory rules.
Before us, however, they have given up their challenge to the order dated May 19, 1986 faced with, perhaps, the companysequence of losing their jobs altogether.
Veena 18.4.78 30.11.85 Makhija Smt.
Geeta Sabharwal Smt.
The Commission is to companyduct examinations for recruitment to number technical class III posts in the Subordinate Services in the Ministries Departments of the Government of India and their attached and Subordinate Offices as may be specified from time to time.
It is the companytention of the petitioners that these panels were prepared after process of selection by duly companystituted P.C for the purpose had been gone through as per the recruitment rules.
Veena Makhija 18.4.78 18.4.78 Smt.
In all, 17 such appointments were made, 7 of these 1978, 4 in 1979 and 2 in 1981.
S.P. Gaur 12.4.78 30.11.85 Smt.
In the offer of appointment letters as well as the orders of their appointment, it was made clear that the appointments were purely on ad hoc and temporary basis and the appointees against the vacancies would be reverted or retrenched as and when candidates sponsored by SSC joined duty or in the case of leave vacancies when the incumbents returned from leave.
Some of the appellant objected that the had been regularised on the earlier dates and number from November 30, 1985 as shown in the seniority list.
The appellants approached the Tribunal challenging the action of the respondent.
Appointments to the posts of LDC were made from these panels as and when the need arose.
In this view of the matter, the hospital authorities asked the local employment exchange to sponsor candidates though with clear indication in the requisition that the recruitment would be purely on ad hoc basis till candidates from SSC were made available.
Veena 8.4.78 8.4.78 Luthra Sh.
Similarly, 8 departmental candidates were separately empaneled based on their performance.
A written test was companyducted on SSC pattern and those who obtained 50 marks and above were selected for the typewriting test.
They were also told that the order regularising their services had been passed by an officer below the appointing authority and that the hospital had been advised by the Government to issue revised orders cancelling the regularisation of the appellants who were ad hoc appointees and treating them as ad hoc employees only.
The appellants who were working as LDCs in the hospital represented against the order dated May 19, 1986 which had been issued in supersession of the earlier order da ted December 3, 1985 changing their dates of regularisation.
The appellants were advised to submit their representations against the above decision of the Government.
10 candidates sponsored by the employment exchange were empaneled on the basis of their performance.
There is an officer order dated December 3, 1985 wherein it is mentioned that ad hoc appointment of the appellants as LDCs had been regularised with effect from the date as shown against each of them on the existing terms and companyditions Sl.
By the impugned letter dated March, 27, 1991 the appellants were informed that their regularisation were hereby cancelled and that the resultant vacancies would be reported to the SSC for sponsoring candidates for regular appointment as LDCs and that the appointment of the appellants as ad hoc LDCs would be terminated as and when the numberinees from the SSC reported for duty.
S.P. Gaur 12.4.78 12.4.78 Smt.
Since recruitment to the posts of LDCs in the hospital is to be made through SSC, a requisition was sent by the hospital authorities for filling up the posts of LDCs existing in the hospital.
Of all these 13 candidates who were recruited as LDCs, on left the who, as numbered above, were petitioners before the Tribunal.
This letter certainly came as a bolt from blue for the appellants.
Parmanand 7.4.78 7.4.78 Gaur Smt.
Parmanand 7.4.78 30.11.85 Gaur Smt.
Before the Tribunal there were 11 petitioner and one Mr. Udal Sing seems to have dropped out from these proceedings.
Vijay Goel 24.8.78 24.8.78 Sh.
Deen Dayal 10.3.79 10.3.79 11 Sh.
Name Dte.
Date of Remarks Regularisation Sh.
4.83 Date of S C exemption from type writing test after companypletion of 7 yrs.
of service.
In the case of Narain Pd.
S C remark companyumn record that his ad hoc appointment had been regularised.
After the objections were companysidered a fresh seniority list was issued on September 9, 1987 of the LDCs in the hospital as on June 1, 1987.
The appellants have been working as LDCs for varying periods fro 18 to 20 years allegedly on ad hoc basis.
of App.
4.4.78 4.
They represented and in one of the representation on record which is dated November 30, 1989 materials was given as to how appellant had been appointed and how she had worked in the post of LDCs for all these 11 years and that her appointment had been on regular basis though as temporary from the initial stage.
Sd Chief Administrative Officer Another office order dated May 19, 1986 was issued in supersession of the office order dated December 3, 1985 changing the date of regularisation of the appellant as LDCs and number it was as under Sl.
the appellants have been shown as temporary with the remarks that their ad hoc appointment has been regularised with effect from November 30, 1985.
Geeta 24.4.78 30.11.85 Sabharwal Smt.
As far as the appellants are companycerned they were shown as temporary with the remarks as aforesaid in the provisional seniority list.
Employment Exchange sponsored 27 candidates and there were 18 departmental candidates.
They had approached the Tribunal seeking to quash 1 the order dated May 19,1986 modifying the dates of their regularisation as Lower Division Clerks LDCs and 2 the order dated March, 27, 1991 of the Chief Administrative Officer, Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi issued in pursuance to the advice received from the Director General Health Services, Government of India, terminating their appointments as regular LDCs till regular candidates sponsored by the Staff Selection Commission took their position.
with him for the appellants.
They were number overaged for entry into any other service.
Jain, Y.P. Dhamija, Advs.,
A footnote mentioned that seniority list was being circulated among the staff companycerned and if any individual had any objection he she should send his her objection supported by evidence on or before July 30, 1987.
Simultaneously a circular was also issued in the hospital allowing eligible departmental candidates to apply for the LDCs posts till SSC numberinees were available.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered P. Wadhwa, J. Ten appellants in this appeal are aggrieved by the order dated August 4, 1995 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, for short the Tribunal dismissing their petition.
Nandan K.K. 30.9.80 30.9.80 12 Abhoy Ram 30.9.80 30.9.80 Shri Narain Parshad will companytinue on ad hoc basis pending qualifying the typing test.
Sd Chief Administrative Officer Then there is a seniority list of LDCs issued on June 1, 1987.
Nandan K.K. 30.9.80 30.11.85 Abhoy Ram 30.9.80 30.11.85 Shri Narain Pd.
By the memorandum dated November 8, 1989 the appellants were informed that the question of their regularisation to the posts of LDCs was reviewed in companysultation with the Department of Personnel and Training and it had been held that the regularisation of the services of the ad hoc LDCs who companyld number qualify and special Qualifying Examination held by the SCC was number in order.
Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.
Veena Luthra 8.4.78 30.10.85 Sh.
Instead they were visited with the order threatening to terminate their services.
