Judgment:
1. The petitioners have filed the above noted writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30th November, 2004 issued by the Executive Director, Airports Authority of India terminating the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners and for further directions to the respondents to continue the petitioner on their respective posts and also for further directions to the respondents to accord similar treatment to the petitioners as has been accorded by the respondents to those, who have been appointed on regular basis.
2. According to the petitioners, on the approval of the competent authority, they were appointed on ad hoc basis to various posts including the post of Senior Superintendent and Assistants, initially for a period of six months. It was also submitted that their ad hoc appointments were extended time and again, and in order to substantiate their contentions they have relied on order dated 15th January, 2001, wherein the extension of the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner Anuradha was effected, on which the other petitioners have also relied on account of being on the same footing. As far as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned it was contended that their services were regularized by orders dated 13th March, 2002 and 30th April, 2001.
3. The petitioner further asserted that while working on ad hoc basis, they had duly complied with all the procedures by furnishing the requisite character verification, educational certificates, proof of date of birth, etc. and that they had performed all their duties with due diligence and honesty. However, by order dated 30th November, 2004, their services were terminated, which order is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the order has been passed mechanically and the principles of natural justice have been violated since their services were terminated without issuing any show cause notice, hence they were denied the reasonable opportunity of being heard.
4. The petitioners urged that the termination of their services is based on unfounded, baseless, fabricated and concocted grounds and the respondents have indulged in a hire and fire policy. It was also contended that the petitioners have been exploited by making them work on ad hoc basis for such a long span of time.
5. The writ petition is contested by the respondent contending, inter alia, that petitioners along with about 133 employees were appointed to their respective posts by the competent authority. According to the service conditions as per the appointment letter, the service of the petitioner could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason/notice.
6. The respondent asserted that numerous complaints were received by the Vigilance Department against the appointments, as ad hoc appointments were in total contravention of the service rules and the recruitment procedure, as these posts were filled on the recommendations of several Ministers and important persons. Also the posts which were filled were not circulated in terms of Section 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. Since the appointments were not made as per the due procedure for the regular post, considering the various facts including the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, services of all the employees who had been appointed on ad hoc basis including the petitioner were terminated.
7. As per the learned counsel the rules required that the posts had to be advertised and reference had to be sought from the employment exchange, prior to the appointments made by the respondent, which was not duly complied with. It was also pleaded that the petitioners did not face any competitive test/interview and were otherwise not eligible as almost all the petitioners had crossed their age limits. The respondents further asserted that about 28 persons were regularized though they were appointed initially on ad hoc basis and on finding irregularities in their appointments and on account of non-compliance of the procedure as contemplated under the service rules and law, the appointment of all these persons too were terminated collectively.
8. The other employees, whose services had also been terminated had filed different writ petitions, in their writ petitions an order dated 30th April, 2007 was passed in WP(C) No. 18661-65/2004 titled as „Rajender Kumar Saxena & Ors. v. UOI, wherein detailed directions were given while disposing of all the writ petitions. The directions which were given by the Court in the other writ petitions are as follows:-
"1. Petitioner as well as other employees whose services were terminated on similar grounds would be given an opportunity for selection in the proposed recruitment of Group C and Group D posts.
2. For Group D posts, suitability of the candidates would be adjudged by interview and wherever applicable, a trade test for the specific occupation. Additionally, suitability may be adjudged on the basis of familiarity with office procedures, basic knowledge of reading and writing, identification of files, nothings thereon etc.
3. For Group C posts, a written objective test, which would assess the aptitude, General Knowledge, the job knowledge, proficiency in English language would be held. A Typing Test would also be held. However, those of the petitioners/terminated employees, who have qualified the typing test of the respondents earlier, would be considered for exemption. This would be applicable where the record of Typing Test passed earlier is available. In addition, candidates would be interviewed.
4. Respondents would make available 50% of the vacancies for the petitioners and others whose services have been terminated, subject to their qualifying the objective written/trade test. 50% vacancies to be filled based on the merit amongst the petitioners and others, whose services were terminated subject to their qualifying the written objective and trade test being selected in interview.
5. Age relaxation would also be made available to the petitioner and others whose services have been terminated. As regards weightage for experience and knowledge peculiar to the respondent organization, the same stands provided by provision of 50% of the vacancies being made available to them."
9. Pursuant to these directions, all the petitioners in the different writ petitions, whose services had been terminated, had complied with the directions given, except for the present petitioners and two other petitioners whose writ petitions are also pending.
10. The other employees, who were appointed on ad hoc basis and whose services were terminated appeared in the examination held on 28th October, 2007; however, the petitioners did not appear in the examination. The respondents also contended that termination took place in November, 2004 and thereafter all the posts have been filled up pursuant to the directions passed by this Court. In the circumstances, it has been contended that the reinstatement of the petitioners is not possible as they were appointed on ad hoc basis without following the procedure for regular appointment and the order of termination cannot be termed to be invalid on the grounds alleged by the petitioners.
11. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on 3rd May, 2011, however, no one was present on behalf of the petitioners despite awaiting for the counsel. On that date, no adverse order was passed in the interest of justice and the matter was allowed to remain on board in the category of „Regular Matters.
12. The matter was again taken up on 4th May, 2011 and again no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners and no adverse order was passed against the petitioners even on that date.
13. Today again, no one is present on behalf of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed in default.