SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 11785 of 1996. D/d. 06.12.2000.

Commissioner, Kendriya V. - Appellants

Versus

Anil Kumar Singh and others - Respondents

Appointment - Respondents appointed on contractual basis - Approached High Court praying that their services should not be terminated until the posts were filled up by a process of regular recruitment - Said prayer allowed by High Court and respondents permitted to seek regular appointment in future if they had necessary qualification as required - However High Court directed that respondents could not claim any additional advantage by virtue of their experience by working for contractual period - Held - No infirmity in the said judgment of High Court so as to call for any interference.

[Paras 1 and 2]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - The employer Commissioner Kendriya Vidhalaya Sangathan is in appeal against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 782/1995 which was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench. The respondents had been appointed on contractual basis and just before the expiry of the contractual period, they approached the High Court with the prayer that their services should not be terminated until the posts are filled up by a process of regular recruitment. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 6th April, 1995 disposed of the Writ Petition following an earlier judgment of the said Court in S.P. Upadhyay's case directing that the Writ Petitioners should be allowed to continue till the posts are filled up by process of regular recruitment, and those petitioners should be allowed to compete with other candidates if they apply for selection and if they are otherwise not disqualified. The High Court also took additional care by indicating that the Writ Petitioners cannot claim any additional advantage by virtue of their experience by working for the contractual period. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any infirmity with the said judgment of the High Court to be interfered with by this Court. The expression "if they are otherwise not disqualified" would obviously mean they must have the necessary qualifications, as required, under the relevant Rules for being appointed as a Teacher and then they have to compete along with others for adjudication of their merit for being appointed. The apprehension of the employer that the impugned judgment directs condonation of the age is wholly unfounded.

2. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any justification for interference with the direction given by High Court. Civil Appeals are accordingly dismissed. Since the appeals stand disposed of, the results of the selection already made may be published. I.A.3-4 : These are two applications for intervention by 7 teachers, who had filed Writ Petitions before the High Court and the High Court had given similar direction as the one which the Commissioner Kendriya Vidhalaya Sangathan assailed in this Court which was the subject matter in C.A. 11785/1996. Because of an interim direction of this Court dated 2.9.1996 staying the operation of the order by the High Court, it appears that after the period of contract was over there has been no continuance of these intervenors. The Intervenros had filed the applications for being impleaded as intervenors and to have the benefit of the judgment of this Court in C.A. No. 11785/1996 which we have disposed of today. Since they are similarly situated as the respondents in the aforesaid Civil Appeal, the applications for intervention stand allowed. We further direct our judgment in C.A. No 11785/1996 would govern the case of these intervenors.

.