WP (C) 2582 of 2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2582/2010 % Date of Decision: 19.04.2010 Sumit & Ors. …. Petitioner Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate Versus Union of India & Anr. …. Respondent Through Mr. Ruchir Misra and Mr. Rahul Jain, Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioners, who were appointed as attendant on temporary basis with the Textile Committee had challenged their termination by the respondent in an original application being OA 2375/2009 titled Sh. Sumit & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors, which was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench by its order dated 10th November, 2009 which is challenged by the petitioners in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. WP (C) 2582 of 2010 Page 2 of 5 The petitioners were appointed on temporary basis on probation for a period of six months by order dated 22nd February, 2008 and were posted at different places. Their services were terminated by order dated 1st June, 2009. Before the Tribunal, they had challenged their termination contending, inter alia, that they had been working for more than 1 ½ years and since they were appointed after qualifying the requisite formalities and after the expiry of the period of probation of six months, it was not further extended nor any notice was given, so they had become permanent employee and therefore, their service could not be terminated. The Tribunal had perused the files pertaining to appointment and termination of the petitioners by respondent No. 2. From the file, it had transpired that the petitioners were appointed irregularly by the management of the Textile Committee which is a central autonomous body fully funded by the Government of India for its operation, maintenance and day to day function. It was also noticed that the Textile Committee had to follow the Government of India Statutory Rules and under the Scheme of Optimization of post for direct recruitment, even five vacant posts of attendants were abolished and final order was also issued by the Textile Committee. On 1st June, WP (C) 2582 of 2010 Page 3 of 5 2009, all the posts on which the petitioners were working had been abolished. The Tribunal has also held that there could not be deemed permanent appointment after the expiry of period of probation of six months as the order dated 22nd February, 2008, had clearly indicated the terms and conditions of appointment stipulating that the period of probation would be six months, which could be extended or curtailed at the discretion of the appointing authority. It had also transpired before the Tribunal that on the basis of a note that by letter dated 29th March, 2007, considering the work load, Textile Committee had referred the five vacant posts of attendant under annual direct recruitment plan-2006-07. However, Government of India by letter No. 16/6/2007-A & MMTC(TC) dated 6th July, 2007 had intimated that all grounds given for filling up for five group “D” posts related to administrative work, i.e., file movement, dispatch work and security were not justified. The Tribunal also relied on the fact that for filling up the post by the petitioners there were no advertisements and no rules or regulations were followed nor clearance and mandatory approval of screening committee was obtained nor Committee Recruitment Regulations, 1968 were followed and therefore appointment of the petitioners without the availability of sanctioned WP (C) 2582 of 2010 Page 4 of 5 posts and without clearance of Government and was in violation of the recruitments regulation of Textile Committee. It was also held by the Tribunal that since, the petitioners were not responsible for appointments made vide order dated 22nd February, 2008 and their services were temporary, they would be governed Central Civil Services Temporary Service Rules, 1965 and therefore, directed the respondents to pay them one month salary and allowances as admissible to each of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioners were appointed after following the due process and has relied on Textile Committee, Office Order dated 17th August, 2009. Perusal of the said Officer Order, however, reveals that no direct recruitment could be made unless it had been cleared by the concerned screening committee and approval conveyed by the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any document to demonstrate that approval was given to respondent No. 2 for the regular post. The learned counsel is also not able to show as to how the appointment of the petitioners was in consonance with Recruitment Regulation of Textile Committee. WP (C) 2582 of 2010 Page 5 of 5 Considering the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. The writ petition is without any merit and, it is therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. APRIL 19, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. „rs‟