Supreme Court of India
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Lakhpati Singh Verma And Ors. on 16 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: (2000)10SCC525, AIRONLINE 1998 SC 218
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, M. Srinivasan
ORDER
1. The respondents were initially appointed in Class IV posts. However, in 1988 since a few posts of typists were available, under the Staff Arrangement Scheme, the appellants on 29-11-1988 invited candidates from Class IV staff who had typing speed in Hindi/English of 25/30 words per minute to apply for ad hoc appointment as typists. It was made clear to all the candidates that they will be sent back to their original posts as soon as typists through the Railway Recruitment Board became available for those posts.
2. Accordingly, a typing test was held and the respondents were temporarily appointed as typists. It is the case of the appellants that the posts of typists were thereafter surrendered as a measure of economy and there were no available posts against which these 5 persons could be retained. Therefore, by an office order dated 7-10-1991 the respondents were reverted from the post of typists to the Class IV posts which they substantially held.
3. The respondents, however, challenged their reversion before the Central Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal the appellants were directed to reappoint the respondents. The Tribunal has given certain other directions as regards their position qua other daily-rated workmen. We fail to see how such directions could have been given when the initial appointment of the respondents was purely temporary and it was expressly subject to the condition that they would be reverted to their original Class IV posts as and when regular appointees through the Railway Recruitment Board would be available. The respondents contend that they could be reverted only on that one contingency of appointment of regularly selected typists. However, if the very posts against which the respondents have been appointed temporarily are themselves abolished, then there could be no question of a temporarily appointed person continuing to hold that non-existing post. The order of reversion to their original substantive post cannot be faulted in the present case.
4. If it is the grievance of the respondents that there are some other posts against which some other ad hoc or temporary appointments are made, they may make a suitable representation to the appellant, if they so desire, for consideration of their cases. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and original applications are dismissed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.