AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.(Oral) - Petitioners were engaged as Assistant Managers in the Respondent Corporation on consolidated pay
of Rs. 18,000/- per month for a period of six months. The orders were issued on 9th October, 2014. The petitioners as stated at Bar, joined on
the post of Assistant Managers in pursuance to the engagement orders on the same date on which it was issued.
In terms of Order dated 18th March, 2015, General Manager (H) issued the order in pursuance to the orders passed by Competent Authority
where under it was provided that certain orders which include the engagement orders of petitioners also shall cease to exist with immediate effect.
It is this order which is called in question in this petition.
Mr. Z. A. Shah, learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned order has been passed in pursuance to Government Order No. 384-GAD
of 2015 dated 17th March, 2015.
Learned counsel submitted that the said order was not applicable to the Respondent Corporation and it is not known as to whether same has
been adopted by them.
Learned counsel further submitted that before completion of six month, the impugned order is passed that too without issuance of notice to the
petitioners which render the impugned order illegal.
Learned counsel also submitted that in the engagement order, one of the condition provided is that the petitioner can be considered for
regularization based on good performance and duties.
Learned counsel prayed for allowing of this writ petition.
Mr. T. Hussain Khawaja, learned AAG, submitted that the petitioners were engaged without following procedure established by law.
Learned counsel submitted that without notifying the post and granting of opportunity to all the eligible candidates to compete in the selection
process, engagement has been made, which order in law is void ab initio.
Learned counsel further submitted that quashing of the impugned order would result in restoring of an illegal order.
Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon Judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SCC 828,
AIR 1999 (6) SCC 237, AIR 2006 (2) SCC 350.
Learned counsel prayed for dismissal of this petition.
The life of the engagement order was to expire on 8th/9th April, 2015. The impugned order has been passed on 18th March, 2015.
The writ petition has been filed on 24th June, 2015, much after the date the term of the engagement of the petitioners had expired. On the date
of filing of the writ petition there was no order of either extension or appointment issued in favour of the petitioners. Assuming for argument sake
that order dated 17th March, 2015 is declared to be illegal even then the petitioners would not get any benefit as they cannot be ordered to be
restored to service when there is no engagement order in their favour which have expired in the month of April, 2015 itself.
Even otherwise the engagement order which was passed in favour of the petitioner would not clothe them with any right in law, inasmuch as,
the same was issued in their favour without following the mandate contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. No advertisement notice was
issued. Eligible candidates were not given opportunity to compete in the selection process for being engaged as Assistant Managers on contractual
basis. The engagement order itself being illegal, no writ can be issued to bring back into existence an illegal order. As already stated the tenure of
six months stood expired in the month of April, 2015 and writ petition has been filed in the month of June, 2015 and was infructuous at the time of
filing itself.
For the above stated reasons, there being no merit in this petition, is accordingly dismissed along with connected IAs.
Interim direction if any shall stand vacated.
In view of the dismissal of the writ petition this contempt petition does not survive and it is also dismissed.