lvmloN "ENC D H LE SHRI JAGDISH BHALLA Ag C ON’BLE SHRI SATISH K AGNIIHOTRI J w 4 "Pet of y, ‘I Wk mPetmon N, 454 orioo < ‘ itlidnefk v1.7 A Union *Ee p’ondents 3 ' * ' , Secretar {HAL lndla Through, :‘i'is ¥ Ministry of Home ' t: . j i , Affairs New Delhi ' I ' ‘ 1 I 2. Director Geqeral Central Industrial - ' ' ' ‘ r , Security For§ce (Ministry of Home -, Affairs) 13 CGO Complex Lodhr' r _ g : ‘ _‘ R hi 103 ~ ‘ oad New Del 100 ' ' Commandant , Central ‘ ‘ ,_lndustnal Secunty Force 3'“: L ‘ Reserve Battalion Bhllal Post :i m Dlstt Durg (CG _ {U ) he Prmcrl Recruit Trammgjr j Centre Central Industrial Security‘ , ' Force BhllalDlstt Durg (C " ‘ _ Vus ers r Madan M an Slngh S/o Lat , Raja Slngh ‘ " Reserve Ba aron Utal Durg '2. 7 ‘_ Dr Smt Durga B Rajnala agedi" ‘ about 33 ;Qr No 6~A Street ,'N¢6,$_ec,t 0 BhllarDlsttDurg, Medical Offcer ; g s '30] r Under Pnncrpal Recruit Tralnrngr ‘ Centre CISF Bhllal Durg (CG) l i l r l l r l l l x l l (Wnt Petition under Artrcle 2261227 of Constlt£mn of Indra) ‘2 l Present ' Shn$K Benwal Standmg counselfor Union oflndra 1 petitioners ' hrIMD‘V‘Dhoter‘oo J ‘ 'B J H ‘ The T pa _ ..... 7 G) " - D e 1, , y v I ~ or 1 ‘ r “ r- l / ‘_ S s \ ‘ ‘ GRAL ORDER i I é é x 1 ‘ l (Passed on 26’“ July, 200' ) I E §The following ora! order of the Court was passed Hon’ble Jagdlsh Bhalla Ag C J i t e judgment and order dared 310-04-2002 ‘passed by the Central édministrative yTribunal EThis writ petition is directed against th (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal") Jabalpur {wherein a direction hao be n ,Issued to the petitioners to ensure consrderation of the cl rmdntsirespondents’ case for regulanzation after consultation wrth th Union Public Sen/ice Commtsston i i *Leamed counsel for opposrte party No1 informs that oppOSite pa‘ No 1 nameiy, Dr Madan Mohan Singh has already resrgned from the post in question and the counset for the petitioners has confrmed the same Accordingiy, it has been submitted on behalf of the ‘ l petitioners that now this petition is limited only for conSideration of regularization of oppOSite party No 2 ‘ it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that after due advertisement for appointment on ad-hoc basis under statutory scheme. the respondents/claimants were appointed as such basis in accordance with the rules The respondents continued to work initially ‘till 25-06-1998 and thereafter on the strength of interim order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal on 26-06 1998 wherein it was provrded that if new faces are inducted, the services of the applicants shall not be terminated except if regular appointments are made. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the original application of the applicants and opined that it would be fair and reasonable to direct the respondents to refer the cases of the applicants to Union Public Service ' \ 3 l Eommlsswn for thelr regulanzatmn m acc rdance w1th the rules In the » ' circumstances the learned Tribunal directed the petitioners to conSIder the case of regularization of the claimants in accordance With law We ' f i :épposne party No2 I claimant on ad hoc bas1s by foHowmg the s ‘ ‘ tatutory scheme The aforesaid direction was Issued by the Tribunal In. :x t:he background of the facts that smce the apphcant had worked for a long period and had requISlte quahfcations and even while bemg l ‘ in the exception carved out in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Umadevu (2006)4 SCC— ln (2007) 5 SCC 326 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others r ‘ Vs L V Subramanyeswara and another the Apex Court has dealt in all the various Situations wath regard to the rights of ad hoc .. m employees The law lard down in the said judgment protects the Interest of the apphcant/ respondent No 2 ln the light of the aforesaid judgment we find that the Interference shown by the Trlbunal cannot be interfered and habte to be 'k ' fu » re dismisse r Sd/- Satish K. Agni‘hotri d/- cting Chief Justi nd that due care was taken by the deio'artment while appomting the ,ialppomted on ad hoc baSis was selected by a Selection Committee - ‘l‘l'herefore the sen/Ices of the applicant could not have been terminated pheld Accordingly, no interference is warranted and the writ petition, ‘ ‘ i d. , ’ S A ce ‘ t r