Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Naina Praveen vs Sports Authority Of India on 4 November, 2023
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.597/2023
WITH
O.A. No.556/2023
O.A. No.598/2023
O.A. No.655/2023
O.A. No.2288/2021
Reserved on :05.10.2023
Pronounced on :
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
O.A. No.597/2023
Dr. Hema Valecha, (Age 36 years)
D/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar
R/o Sanskriti Apartment, H.No.17 & 18,
1st Floor A Tower 3,
K.No.533 and 535 Minimum Extended Buarari Garhi,
Burari Delhi-110084. ...Applicant.
versus
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Sports Authority of India,
Through the Director General,
Sports Authority of India,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium Complex (East Gate)
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. National Centre for Sports Science and
Research (NCSSR)
Through its Director,
National Centre for Sports Science and
Research (NCSSR)
Room No.41, Indira Gandhi Stadium,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Shri Harshit Jain and Mr.Varun Dewan)
(2)
O.A. No.556/2023
1. Amandeep Singh,
Working as S&C Expert Grade - II
Aged about 26 years,
S/o-Sukhdev Singh,
R/o #B4-1476 Patti Suja Singh,
Near Chota Talab,
Sri Muktsar Sahib 152026, Punjab.
2. Dr. Chandravijaysinh G Jadeja (PT),
Working as - Physiotherapist Grade - II,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Girirajsinh D Jadeja,
R/o "GIRIRAJ" Banglow, Jadeshwar Society,
Station Road, Jam khambhaliya 361305,
Dist- Dev Bhoomi Dwarka, Gujarat.
3. Dr. Shailja Kaul (PT)
Working as - Physiotherapist Grade I,
Aged about 37 years, D/o Mr. V.P.Kaul
R/o B-702, Satisar Appartments,
plot no.6, Sector 7, Dwarka, New-Delhi-110075.
4. Dr. Andrea R. Hegde (PT)
Working as- Physiotherapist Grade I,
Aged about 28 years,
S/o Mr. Ramesh M. Hegde
R/o - Permanent address- A/P Kodoli
(Sakharwadi) Tal. Panhala. Dist. Kolhapur.
(Maharashtra - 4161114.
5. Dr. Kanika Taneja (PT)
Working as - Physiotherapist Grade II,
Aged about 37 years,
D/o-Dr. Vinod Kumar
R/o-35/10 Ground Floor
Old Rajender Nagar,
New Delhi-110060.
6. Dr. Bhanu Uday Shandilya (PT)
Working as - Physiotherapist Grade II,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Shri L.L. Shandilya
R/o-271, Near Noble College,
(3)
Rajakhedi, Makroniya, Sagar,
Madhya Pradesh - 470004.
7. Dr. V.Gayathri Jawahar (PT)
Working as - Physiotherapist Grade I,
Aged about 43 years, D/o-G. Jawahar
R/O-KARA A 31, SARAS,
Alathara Sreekariyam,
P.O Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala-695017.
8. Dr. Manveet Kumar (PT)
Working as - Physiotherapist Grade I,
Aged about 30 years,
S/o - Raghuvir Singh
R/o - Village - Jamaluddinpur
Post - Dattiyana Tehsil - Chandpur
District - Bijnor Uttar Pradesh - 246725.
9. Dr. Ritu Susan Babu (PT)
Working as - Physiotherapist Grade II,
Aged about 36 years,
D/o - Babu George
R/o - Edayadiyil house, Gaff hills,
Sreekariyam P.O, Trivandrum,
Kerala - 695017.
10. Neha Luthra (PT)
Working as - Physiotherapist Grade I,
Aged about 35 years,
D/o - Sh ML Luthra
R/o 2L-23 NIT Faridabad,
Haryana 121001.
11. Dr. Kriti sachdeva (PT)
Working as Physiotherapist Grade II
Aged about 35 years,
D/O - Mr Deepak Sachdeva
R/O H.no-1697, Sec-49 Sainik Colony
Faridabad, Haryana.
12. Dr. Daniel Raj S (PT)
Working as Physiotherapist Grade I
Aged about 35 Years
S/O - Salaman Raj
R/0 - 6/164 Gandhi Nagar 1st,
(4)
Pulivalam,Thiruvarur,
Tamilnadu 610109
13. Dr. Deepti Rani (PT)
Working as - Physiotherapist Grade 2
Aged about 32 Years
W/O - Antarjot Singh
R/O H.no. 22, Baba Makhan Shah
Lubana Nagar Near Mithapur Road,
Jalandhar City, Punjab 144003.
14. Dr. Rajlaxmi Sawant (PT)
Working as Physiotherapist Grade II
Aged about 33 Years
D/O - PADMAJA SAWANT
R/O - 23 Bhagirathi Puram Engineers Enclave
GMS Road Dehradun 248001
15. DR. Mahesh Babu Bellam (PT)
Working as Physiotherapist Grade II
Aged about 33 years
S/O - Venkata raju
R/O-H.No:5-171/1 K.S palle, Giddalur,
Prakasam, Andhrapradesh- 523357
16. DR. Aditi Nigam (PT)
Working as - Physiotherapist Grade I
Aged about 31 years
D/O - Shri S.K.Nigam
R/O-A-2 First Floor Pushpa Appt 2 plot no 38
Sector 5 Rajendra Nagar
Sahibabad Ghaziabad UP. 201005.
17. DR. Vishal Bhardwaj (PT)
Working as Physiotherapist grade I
Aged about 41 years
S/O R. N. Bhardwaj
R/O-B-83 Double Storey Quaters,
Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi 110055.
18. DR. Ganji Ashoka Chakravarthi (PT)
Working as - PHYSIOTHERAPIST GRADE I
Aged about 33 years
S/O-Ganji Srinivasa Rao,
R/O-6-119, D N T Colony, Gangavaram Road,
Near Community Hall, Inkollu, Prakasm (District),
(5)
Andhra Pradesh-523167.
19. DR. Praveen Trivedi (PT)
Working as - PHYSIOTHERAPIST GRADE I
Aged about 33 years
S/O-Shailendra Kumar Trivedi,
R/O-8/179 Awas Ambedkarpuram Vikas
Kalyanpur, U.P.-208017.
20. DR. Aamir Hussain Shah (PT)
Working as PHYSIOTHERAPIST GRADE I
Aged about 32 years
S/O Gh Rasool Shah
R/O Buchoo Kokernag Anantnag
Jammu & Kashmir.
21. DR. Tsering Droma (PT)
Working as Physiotherapist
Aged about 30 years
S/O Mr. Sonam Tsering
R/O Doma Hotel & Store,
Near Forest Check Gate, Tippi,
West Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh-790114
22. Dr Arun Kumar (Ph.D.)
Working as - Anthropometrist-II
Aged about 31 years
S/O - Kamta Prasad
R/O In front of Moti Bhawan Ardali Bazar
Katra Banda, U.P. 210001
23. Suresh Kumar Sen
Working as - MASSEURE
Aged about 24 years
S/O Durga Lal sen R/O 188, Near Raj. UP. Primary
School, Ashok Nagar, Bara Naya Gaon
Dist. Bundi, Rajasthan - 323024
24. Anshu Malik
Working as Consultant nutritionist
Aged about 47 years
S/O - Shri Om Prakash Malick
R/O House No.1396, Sector 15
Panchkula, Haryana - 134111.
25. Shubhada Yeole
(6)
Working as - Consultant Nutritionist
Aged about 31 years
D/O-C.G. Yeole
R/O-Plot no 47, survey no. 39
Parijat Nagar,
Old Saikheda Road Nashik Road,
Nashik, Maharashtra 422101
26. Harmanvir Singh
Working as - Strength & Conditioning Lead
Aged about 28 years
S/O-Mr. Jasbir Singh
R/O-34, TDI City, Sector 118, SAS Nagar,
Punjab 160055
27. Ramanjit Kaur
Working as - Strength and Conditioning Expert
Grade II
Aged about 33 years
S/O-S. Amarjit Singh
R/O - #342, Ward no 13, Civil Hospital road,
Near Water Works, Mansa, Punjab
28. Bimal Raj
Working as - Strength & Conditioning Expert Grade II
Aged about 25 years
S/O-K Rajendran
R/O-TC 76/994(1), Nandanam SK Lane,
Kallummoodu, Anayara
P.O, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695029
29. Akshay V
Working as - Strength and Conditioning Expert Grade II
Aged about 30 years
S/O-Vijayachandran BS
R/O-Thiruvonam, Amritha Nagar,
Kaimanam, Pappanamcode
P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695018
30. Rijo Oommen Iype
Working as Strength and Conditioning Exper Grade II
Aged about 28 years
S/O-Oommen Iype
R/O Room No 1 Shubham Apartment
Chulna Road Vasai West 401202
(7)
31. Chandrej Kumar Working as - Masseur
Aged about 34 years
S/O Madan Lal
R/O - H. No 27, Street No. 2 Krishna colony,
Nabha Road, Patiala 147001. ...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri M.K.Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Sports Authority of India, Through its Director General,
JLN Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. ...Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Shri Harshit Jain and Mr.Varun Dewan)
O.A. No.598/2023
Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana (Age 41 years)
Physiotherapist Grade-II
S/o Sh.Rajpal Singh Rana,
R/o H.No.753, Near Sultan Memorial School,
V.P.O.Ghevra,
North West Delhi-110081. ...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Sports Authority of India,
Through the Director General,
Sports Authority of India,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium Complex (East Gate)
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. National Centre for Sports Science and
Research (NCSSR)
Through its Director,
National Centre for Sports Science and
Research (NCSSR)
Room No.41, Indira Gandhi Stadium,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(8)
(By Advocate: Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Shri Harshit Jain and Mr.Varun Dewan)
O.A. No.655/2023
1. Naina Praveen,
Working as Nutritionist
Aged about 48 years,
W/o S Praveen Kumar,
R/O - SAI Takyel, Family Quarters, SAI NERC,
Imphal - 795001.
2. Dr. Alisha,
Working as -Anthropometrist Grade - II,
Aged about 30 years,
W/o-Varun Gandhi
R/o - RZ-344/C, street no. 7, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, Delhi-110045
3. Aby. R. Thomas
Working as - Strength & conditioning Expert
Grade II,
Aged about 25 years,
S/o Mr. Regi Thomas
R/o 9B Indrani Street, Ashok Nagar Extension,
Avadi, Chennai-600062
4. Ms. Anumol K
Working as-Physiologist Grade II,
Aged about 30 years,
W/o - Anjoe Jose
R/o - Beena Bhawan, Moozhinada, Karyavattom,
Trivandrum - 695584
5. Ashwani
Working as - Strength & conditioning Expert
Lead
Aged about 26 years,
D/o - Parthasarathy
R / 0 - 2 , Vijayalaxmi Nagar, Puthagaram,
Chennai - 600099
6. Dr. Sunil Kumar
Working as - Consultant Doctor,
Aged about 35 years,
(9)
S/o Shri Jagdish Kumar
R / 0 - 132/28 B, Subhash Nagar,
Near Shiv Mandir, Rohtak - 124001.
7. Dr. Shilpa Choudhary
Working as - Anthropometrist Grade-II,
Aged about 34 years,
W /o - Nishant Parmar
R / 0 - Sunil Vinayak CHS Flat No. 2,
Plot No. 310,Sector-19C,
Kopar Khairne, Mumbai - 400709
8. Ms. Shivangi
Working as - Masseuse,
Aged about 25 years,
D/o - Haribhan Singh
R/o - Village Dhanpur, Amethi,
Uttar Pradesh - 227801.
9. Dr. Simmi Saini
Working as - Anthropometrist Grade I,
Aged about 30 years,
D / o - Narender Kumar
R / o - 1609 , Sector - 46, Gurugram,
Haryana-122003
10. Anirban Das
Working as - Strength & Conditioning Expert
(Grade II)
Age about 31 years
S/o-Shri Krishna Gopal Das
Ro-Smantapally, Ruparayanpur 13,
Mother Teresa Sarani,
P.O.Rupanarayanpur Bazar,
Distt. Paschim Bardhanman,
West Bengal -713364
11. Soumyadip Ghosh
Working as-Exercise Physiologist Grade II
Aged about 26 years,
S/O-Shri Debi Prasad Ghosh
RO-Aligunj, Ward No. 11, Near Krishna Lodge,
Midnapore, PS-Kotwail, Paschim Medinapore,
West Bengal - 721101.
12. Sounak Chakraborty
(10)
Working as-Exercise Physiologist Grade I
Aged about 27 Years
S/o - Shri Udayaditya Chakraborty
RO-P-46/C, Motijheel Avenue,
Kolkata - 700074 P.O.Motijheel, PS Dumdum
13. Sourojeet Samanta
Working as-Exercise Physiologist Grade I
Aged about 26 Years
S/O Shri Supriyo Samanta
R/o 7/1B, Ramkrishna Das Lane,
Kolkata - 700009.
14. Dr. Sukhmani Kaur
Working as-Anthropometrist Grade-I
Aged about 30 Years
D/o Shri Harpal Singh
R/o 75, Water Works Wazirabad, P.O.
Timarpur, Delhi-110054.
15. Ms. Sweta Sarkar
Working as - Assistant Nutritionist
Aged about 31 years
S/O - Prabir Ranjan Sarkar
R/O-61/C, Subhash Nagar, Talpukur,
Rishra, Hooghly - 712250, West Bengal
16. Ms. Usra Hasan
Working as - Exercise Physiologist Grade-II
Aged about 26 years
D/O - Shri Iqbal hasan
R/O-F.A.-39, Abul Fazal Enclave-1,
Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025
17. Ms. Harmeet Kaur
Working as - Masseuse
Aged about 34 years
W/O - Amarjit Singh
R/O - Quarter 17, Type 2, Near Girls Hostel,
NSNIS Patiala, Punjab - 147001
18. Ms. Manidipa Dawn
Working as - Exercise Physiologist Grade - III
Aged about 29 years
D/O - Tamal Dawn,
R/O-3, Nather Bagan Street, Kolkata - 700005
(11)
19. Ms. Priya Tiwari
Working as - Exercise Physiologist Grade-II
Aged about 28 years
D/O - Shri Krishan Kumar
R/o H.No. - 248, Near Jain Temple,
Indra Nagar, Kishangarh, Ajmer,
Rajasthan - 305801.
20. Anish V.
Working as - Masseur
Aged about 35 years
S/O-Vijayan
R/O-3/176, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
New Delhi-110062
21. Pradeep K.
Working as - Masseur
S/O-Vasu
Aged about 36 years
R/O-19/538, First Floor,
DDA Flats, Madan Gir Khanpur Road,
Delhi-110062 ...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri M.K.Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Sports Authority of India,
Through its Director General,
JLN Stadium, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Director (P),
Sports Authority of India,
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
JLN Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Shri Harshit Jain and Mr.Varun Dewan)
O.A. No.2288/2021
1.Krishan Kumar, Working as Coach, Group 'C'
Aged about 31 years,
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o VPO Chamar Khera,
(12)
Distt Hisaar, Haryana 125113.
2.Sudhir Dehiya, Working as Coach, Group 'C'
S/o Sh.R.C.Dahiya,
R/o 127, West Krishan Vihar,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
3.Rajesh Kumar, Working as Coach, Group 'C'
S/o Sh.Satpal,
R/o VPO Kawi, Panipat, Haryana 132113.
4.Rupinder Punia, Working as Coach, Group 'C'
S/o Sh.Mahender Singh,
R/o Shop No.4A, New Anaj Mandi,
Distt Rohtak, Haryana 124001.
5.Yogesh Kumar, Working as Coach, Group 'C'
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Sh.Laxman Singh,
R/o Makkan No.521, DC Colony,
Near BTM Meal, Hanuman Mandir,
Bhiwani, Haryana 127021.
6.Pardeep, Working as Coach, Group 'C'
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Sh. Anand Singh,
R/o Officer Colony, H no.234
Type-2, Rohtak, Haryana 121001.
7.Vikram, Working as Coach, Group 'C'
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Sh.Satbir Singh,
R/o VPO Umra,
Distt Hisaar, Haryana 125033.
8.Amit, Working as Coach, Group 'C'
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Sh.Rajkumar,
R/o VPO, Baroda,
Distt Jind, Haryana 126115. ....Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri M.K.Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Sports Authority of India,
Through its Director General,
Sports Authority of India,
JLN Stadium, Lodhi Road,
(13)
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Shri Harshit Jain and Mr.Varun Dewan)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
Though the above-mentioned OAs, which were filed jointly vide this Tribunal's order dated 22.02.2023 as it was submitted that all the applicants were similarly placed and they have raised the similar issue in theses OAs filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought the following reliefs and interim relief: OA No.597/2023
Relief a. To quash and set aside circular dated 9.2.2023 whereby the contract of the applicant will be concluded after 1 month i.e. 8.3.2023 and the applicant would be laid off and to further declare the action of respondents in replacing the services of applicant by appointing another set of contractual employees as per impugned advertisements, as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and direct the respondents to continue the service of applicant till the regularization or appointment of regularly recruited as Physiotherapist. b. To quash and set aside Advertisement dated 5.8.2022 and advertisement dated 12.9.2022 and to further direct the respondent that to formulate a policy to regularize the services of applicant as Physiotherapist and applicant be allowed to continue as a Physiotherapist on contract basis with all consequential benefits in preference to juniors, outsiders and freshers.(14)
c. To further direct the respondents that only the nomenclature of Physiotherapists is being changed as a High Performance Analyst (HPA)-Physiotherapists so the applicant is entitled for increase in remuneration as assigned to the new nomenclature of Post i.e. Rs.1,05,000/- with all consequential benefits. d. To allow the OA with exemplary cost. e. To pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Interim Relief Pending final adjudication of the OA, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to restrain the respondents from terminating the services of applicant and issue directions to allow the applicant to continue as Physiotherapist in Sports Authority of India. In case, the applicant interest are not protected, she would suffer irreparable loss as the respondents have already taken decision to terminate her services and appoint another set of employees on contract basis.OA No.556/2023
Relief
(i) To quash and set aside the impugned Circular dated 09.02.2023, office order dated 10-14.02.2023 & advertisements (Annexure A-3 Colly) and direct the respondents to formulate a policy to regularize the services of applicants as Scientific Staff/ Physiotherapist, Nutritionist, Strength & Conditioning Expert, Anthropometrist & Masseur.
(ii) To declare the action of respondents in replacing the services of applicants by appointing another set of contractual employees as per impugned advertisements, as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and direct the respondents to continue the services of applicants appointment till their regularization of regularly recruited or as Scientific Staff/ Physiotherapist, Nutritionist, Expert, Anthropometrist & Masseur.
(iii) to direct the respondents to continue the applicants as Staff/ Physiotherapist, Nutritionist, Strength Conditioning Expert, Anthropometrist Masseur on (15) contract consequential benefits basis with & & all in preference to juniors, outsiders and freshers.
(iv) To allow the OA with exemplary costs.
(v) To pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Interim Relief Pending final adjudication of the OA, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to restrain the respondents from terminating the services of applicant and issue directions to allow the applicants to continue as Scientific Staff/ Physiotherapist, Nutritionist, Strength & Conditioning Expert, Anthropometrist & Masseur, Sports authority of India. In case, the applicants interest are not protected, they would suffer irreparable loss as the respondents have already taken decision to terminate their services and appoint another set of employees on contract basis.
O.A. No.598/2023Relief a. To quash and set aside circular dated 9.2.2023 whereby the contract of the applicant will be concluded after 1 month i.e. 8.3.2023 and the applicant would be laid off and to further declare the action of respondents in replacing the services of applicant by appointing another set of contractual employees as per impugned advertisements, as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and direct the respondents to continue the service of applicant till the regularization or appointment of regularly recruited as Physiotherapist. b. To quash and set aside Advertisement dated 5.8.2022 and advertisement dated 12.9.2022 and to further direct the respondent that to formulate a policy to regularize the services of applicant as Physiotherapist and applicant be allowed to continue as a Physiotherapist on contract basis with all consequential benefits in preference to junior, outsider and fresher. c. To further direct the respondents that only the nomenclature of Physiotherapists is being changed as a High Performance Analyst (HPA)-Physiotherapists so the (16) applicant is entitled for the new nomenclature of Post i.e. Rs. 1,05,000- with all consequential benefits. d. To allow the OA with exemplary cost.
e. To pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Interim Relief Pending final adjudication of the OA, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to restrain the respondents from terminating the services of applicant and issue directions to allow the applicant to continue as Physiotherapist in Sports Authority of India. In case, the applicant interest are not protected, she would suffer irreparable loss as the respondents have already taken decision to terminate her services and appoint another set of employees on contract basis.
O.A. No.655/2023 Relief
(i) To quash and set aside the impugned Circular dated 09.02.2023, office order dated 10.02.2023 & advertisements (Annexure A-3 Colly) and direct the respondents to formulate a policy to regularize the services of applicants as Scientific Staff/ Nutritionist, & Expert, Strength & Conditioning Anthropometrist, Exercise Physiologist, Medical Consultant & Masseur.
(ii) To declare the action of respondents in replacing the services of applicants by appointing another set of contractual employees as per impugned advertisements, as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and direct the respondents to continue the services of applicants till their regularization appointment of regularly recruited Scientific Staff/ Nutritionist, Strength Conditioning Expert, or as & Anthropometrist, Exercise Physiologist, Medical Consultant & Masseur.
(iii) to direct the respondents to continue the applicants as Scientific Staff/ Nutritionist, Strength & Anthropometrist, Conditioning Exercise Expert, (17) Physiologist, Medical Consultant & Masseur on contract basis with all consequential benefits in preference to juniors, outsiders and freshers.
(iv) To allow the OA with exemplary costs.
(v) To pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Interim Relief Pending final adjudication of the OA, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay the termination circular dated 09.02.2023 and restrain the respondents from terminating the services of applicant and issue directions to allow the applicants to continue as Scientific Staff/ Nutritionist, Strength & Conditioning Expert, Anthropometrist, Exercise Physiologist, Medical Consultant & Masseur, Sports authority of India. In case, the applicants interest are not protected, they would suffer irreparable loss as the respondents have already taken decision to terminate their services and appoint another set of employees on contract basis. The identically placed persons aggrieved by the same order have already been given interim protection by this Hon'ble dated 24.02.2023 in OA No. 556/2023 and vide order dated 27.02.2023 in other two similar OAs. O.A. No.2288/2021 Relief
(i) To quash and set aside the impugned Advertisement (Annexure A-1) and direct the respondents to formulate a policy to regularize the services of applicants as Assistant Coach.
(ii) To declare the action of respondents in replacing the services of applicants by appointing another set of contractual employees as per advertisement (Annexure A-1), as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and direct the respondents to continue the services of applicants till their regularization or appointment of regularly recruited as Assistant Coach.
(18)
(iii) to direct the respondents to continue the applicants as Assistant Coach on contract basis with all consequential benefits in preference to juniors, outsiders and freshers.
(iv) To allow the OA with exemplary costs.
(v) To pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Interim Relief Pending final adjudication of the OA, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay the impugned selection process initiated vide Annexure A-1 and direct the respondents to allow the applicants to continue as Assistant Coach, Sports authority of India. In case, the applicants interest are not protected, they would suffer irreparable loss as the respondents have already taken decision to terminate their services and appoint another set of employees on contract basis.
2. It will be recalled that the matter was heard at length in the context of prayer for interim relief and this Bench of the Tribunal had passed the following order dated 24.02.2023 in OA No.556/2023:
"After notice, matter is listed today for consideration on applicants' prayer for grant of interim relief. The applicants have sought interim relief in the form of restraining the respondents from terminating the contractual services of the applicants and further to direct the respondents to allow the applicants to continue in their present contractual status under them till disposal of the OA.
Though, no reply/short reply has been filed, however, as the matter is listed today for consideration of the applicant's prayer for grant of interim relied, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up.(19)
It is the case of the applicants that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondents, the applicants participated in the selection process for contractual engagement under the respondents and on being found suitable and eligible for the respective posts, the applicants were engaged by the Competent Authority amongst the respondents and since, then they have been working and performing under the respondents to the entire satisfaction of the Competent Authority. However, during their such employment, the respondents have started a fresh selection process to fill up the posts against which the applicants had already been working on contract and they were confident of their fresh selection process, they have also applied. However, the applicants have been declared unsuccessful in the said selection process.
Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that once the applicants have been selected and engaged on contract basis and their contract still exists, there was no requirement to conduct a fresh selection process for filling up the posts against which the applicants have been working and performing to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. However, they have been declared fail in the second selection process only to ensure that the respondents can be able to replace the applicants by another set of contractual employees.
In this background, the applicants have challenged the circular dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure A/1) and also the advertisement dated 14.02.2023 to the extend the same pertains to the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the action of the respondents in attempting to replace one set of contractual employees by another set of contractual employees is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which have been followed by the Hon'ble High Court and also this Tribunal in a catena of cases and recently, by this Tribunal in order dated 05.03.2021 in OA No. 2112/2020, titled Ashok Kumar and Ors. V/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Annexure A-9). He has also placed reliance upon certain interim orders passed by this Tribunal to contain that in such facts and circumstances, the applicants are entitled for (20) grant of interim relief. He has submitted that the applicants are engaged by the Competent Authority after following the due process of selection process and the performance of the applicants have been certified by the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to be satisfactory and even the Competent Authority has recommended the extension of the contract and also amount of increment to be accorded to the applicants. As such the action of the respondents in disengaging the applicants is illegal and arbitrary.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicants for grant of any interim relief. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed that the applicants were engaged on contract basis by the Competent Authority through a due selection process and they have been working as such under the respondents till date. However, the learned counsel for the respondents have invited our attention to the offer of contractual engagement dated 26.02.2021 (page
190) to contend that though the initial contract was for three years i.e. likely to end by 25.02.2024 and the said contract was also extendable, however as per para 4 (ii) of the said order dated 26.02.2021, performance of the applicants were to be reviewed periodically and if the performance is not found up to mark, the tenure is liable to be terminated without assigning any reason after serving one month of advance notice or one month's remuneration in lieu thereof.
Learned counsels for the respondents has argued that in the present case, the applicants performance have not been found satisfactory/up to the mark and they have rightly been put under notice before the order/orders has/have been passed for their disengagement.
They have further added that pursuant to the fresh advertisement issued vide their selection process notified vide orders dated 05.08.2022 and 14.02.2023 etc., various persons, including the applicants have voluntarily participated in the selection process. However, they have failed therein and thus, they are not entitled to challenge the selection process (21) competed by the respondents pursuant to such notifications.
Learned counsel for the respondents further placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India V/s C Girija, judgment dated 13.02.2019. Paras 13 to 17 of the same thereof:
"13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that: (SCC p. 107, para 18) "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724.)"
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah, (2009) 3 SCC 227, wherein it was held to be well settled that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations: (SCC p. 584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the (22) selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 327 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, (2009) 5 SCC 515."
16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttarakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that: (SCC p. 318, para 18) "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome."
We have pursued the pleadings available on records and we have also considered the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties.
(23)It is not in dispute that the applicants have been engaged on contract basis on the basis of their performance by the Competent Authority and they are still continuing under the respondents in such capacity. We have also gone through the performance and appraisal given by the Competent Authority amongst the respondents and one such being available at (Annexure A-11 Colly). In the last paragraph of such appraisal reports the Competent Authority has also recommended that the amount of increment to be at 7%. Once it is on record that the period of contract has not ended and even recently, the Competent Authority amongst the respondents have not only recommended for extension of contract, but has also recommended that the increment to be accorded to the applicants, no prima facie reasons behind the action/orders of the respondents in requiring the applicants to participate in another selection process is found. Further, it is also not the case of the respondents that subsequent to such recommendation in the appraisal report, the performance of the applicants has dropped below the benchmarks and/or expectation.
No such documents have also been referred to and brought to our notice.
So far, the law referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned once somebody has taken a chance to participate in a selection process is precluded from attacking the same selection process, there is no doubt in our mind about such law. However, in the facts and circumstances, and that too at this preliminary stage, we do not find judgment referred and to relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties to be of any help to them. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that it is a settled law that one set of contractual employees is ordinarily not required to be replaced by another set of contractual employees. We also do not find any reason that if the applicant selected and engaged by the Competent Authority through a valid selection process initiated by them and their contractual period still exists, the respondents should take any action and/or pass any order to re-place their service by another set of contractual employees.
(24)
Prima facie, we find that the claim of the applicants gets support from the judgment of this Tribunal dated 05.03.2021, wherein the Tribunal has referred to and relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court India in the State of Haryana and Ors. V/s Piara Singh and followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In view of the aforesaid, as an interim measure, the respondents are directed not to terminate the services of the applicants and to maintain status quo qua their services till the next date of hearing.
List the matter for further consideration on 05.04.2023."
3. Accordingly, the OAs have been taken up for final hearing. However, OA No.556/2023 & OA No.597/2023 have been taken as lead case with the consent of learned counsels for both the sides for ease of adjudication. The respondents have filed counter reply refuting the claims made in the OAs. The applicant has also filed rejoinder and additional affidavit to buttress their claim. Further, both the parties have filed their written submissions.
4. We have perused the pleadings on record and also heard the learned counsels for both the sides. In support of his argument that the applicant cannot be allowed to continue against the contractual post they are holding, the learned counsel for the respondents draws our attention to Clause 4 of the newly notified Recruitment Rules of 03.08.2022 which states that all the employees in SAI working on any of the post mentioned in the Annexure-I on (25) the date these rules come into force shall be deemed to have been appointed under these rules. He submits that Annexure A-1 indicates the sanctioned posts created in the new RRs and as no such posts existed earlier applicants have no claim to continue against the post which no longer exist. The learned counsels for the applicants on the other hand argue that since the applicants were appointed to the various posts, including the post mentioned in Annexure A- 1, they are covered under the aforesaid Clause-4 of the new Recruitment Rules. In support of such assertion, the applicants have contended that in fact the same posts have been advertised such as Physiotherapist, Physiologists and Nutritionists etc. against which the applicants were working but in the guise of cadre restructuring/RRs, the respondents have attempted to replace the services of the applicants with another set of contractual employees.
5. It has also been contended by the applicants that while the respondents are well within their right in carrying out the exercise of cadre restructuring but while doing so, they cannot replace the services of the applicants with another set of contractual employees in contravention of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118.
(26)
6. Alluding to the advertisement, learned counsels for the applicants submit that the respondents have initiated process to make appointment in place of applicants as per the cited Recruitment Rules which entail that the vacancies are required to be filled up through an open competition on regular basis, whereas the respondents have issued impugned advertisements dated 05.08.2022 and 12.09.2022 to make appointment on contract basis in place of applicants, which cannot be said to be on regular basis.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the essence of the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (supra), which the applicants relied upon, is that an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee and he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. He further argues that this is not the case of replacement of one set of adhoc or contractual employees by another set of adhoc or contractual or temporary employees. This is a case of appointment of employees in cadre with different qualifications by a regular process of selection, replacing those employees who were appointed against non-cadre posts on adhoc basis without following any Recruitment (27) Rules as no Recruitment Rules for appointment were then in vogue.
8. He draws our attention to the submissions made in the counter reply in this regard, reiterating that there were no existing Recruitment Rules and no defined cadre when the petitioners were appointed by Sports Authority of India for Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports against Khelo India project. Recruitment Rules were framed by Respondent No.1, subsequently providing a cadre of National Centre for Sports Sciences & Research (NCSSR) with structured qualifications, following which a regular process of selection was started for appointment to cadre posts. All the existing posts were surrendered to MoYS and all the existing employees were given opportunity to compete in open selection process along with other qualified for appointment. This exercise was done as a result of cadre restructuring in SAI notified by MoYS for all cadres on 22.09.2021. As a consequence of cadre restructuring, new Recruitment Rules for different cadres were approved. As per the new Recruitment Rules notified on 03.08.2022, the total sanctioned strength for scientific cadre is 384 which also provides for minimum qualification for each posts. The posts (28) were included under two broad categories: High Performance Analyst and Performance Analyst.
9. The advertisements were accordingly issued against restructured sanctioned posts for recruitment on contract basis for a maximum period of 8 years, renewed on annual basis based on performance. The people who are already working on contract including the petitioners were given equal opportunity to apply against newly sanctioned posts and many of them actually participated in the selection process. 26 of them were finally selected as per the new Recruitment Rules. It is further argued that the petitioners are estopped to challenge the selection process once they have participated in the selection process. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Union of India vs. C. Girija (2019) 15 SCC 633 in support of his contention and also cites a catena of judgments to contend that no further stay should be granted in cases of termination of service. He also submits that the learned counsels for the applicants have misread that Rule 4 of the new Recruitment Rules 2022 which clearly mentions that all the employees who were already working against the sanctioned posts were deemed to have been appointed under these rules, whereas there were no sanctioned posts against which the applicants (29) were actually appointed. Thus, he makes a distinction within the class of contractual employees engaged by SAI as non- cadre and cadre, submitting that the contractual employees working against the cadre/sanctioned posts under 2022 rules are on a different footing from the applicants.
11. It is not in dispute that the SAI had notified its services By-Laws and Condition of Service Regulations, 1992 which became effective from 5th September, 1992 wherein it was stipulated that all actions pertaining to conditions of services and relating to service matters till the date of commencement of these rules shall be deemed to have been taken under the authority of these bye-laws and rules. In Para 8 of the said regulation under caption "Method of Recruitment" mentions the following methods:
a) Promotion
b) Direct Recruitment
c) Deputation
d) Re-employment of a retired employee of the Society or Central/State Government or any other Organisation
e) On contract for a specified period on technical personnel on specified terms as approved by Vice-Chairperson, SAI.
12. The present petitioners who were engaged following different advertisements circulated/published for (30) engagement on contract basis on different dates between 26.10.2020 to 29.01.2021 were engaged following due process under the category (e) i.e. on contract as stipulated in the notified rules in 1992. Therefore, even if their engagement was contractual, this was done as per the relevant regulation following a selection method. Thus, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that prior to 2022, there were no rules for selection in place is contrary to above facts.
13. This is also not in dispute that various posts under the two categories (i) High Performance Analyst (ii) Performance Analyst, subsequent to restructuring were advertised. We have perused the advertisement dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure A-2) issued by the SAI which reads as under:
"ENGAGEMENT OF HIGH PERFORMANCE ANALYST (Physiotherapists, Strength & Conditioning Experts Physiologists, Psychologists, Biomechanics, Nutritionists & Biochemists) On CONTRACT BASIS IN SAI NCOEs.
Sports Authority of India (SAI) is an autonomous organization under the administrative control of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports with its Head Quarters at Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 SAI has established 23 National Centres of Excellence across the country for training of young and elite athletes in various disciplines. These NCOEs are funded for several items inter-alia sports (31) science staff through Khelo India Scheme of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports. To strengthen the NCOEs, SAI invites applications from eligible candidates for engagement as High Performance Anh (Physiotherapists Strength & Conditioning Experts, Physiologists, Psychologists, Biomechanics Nutritionists, & Biochemists) on contract basis at various SAI NCOEs. The employment is initially for 1 year, further extendable in cycle of 1 year up to a maximum of 8 years the basis of performance."
14. It is apparent that the engagement of various categories of posts which were advertised was to be done on contract basis alone. The advertisement also goes on to specify their terms of engagement stating that the engagement is initially for one year, further extendable in cycle of 1 year upto a maximum of 8 years on the basis of performance. The advertisement also specifies the posts, pay, nature of duties, eligibility criteria including the essential qualification and experience etc. Further, it says that the contract can be terminated by giving a 30 days' notice period by either party i.e. SAI and the employee.
15. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the respondents is that vide this advertisement it was intended to fill up the various vacancies against the posts sanctioned whereas in earlier advertisement the posts were to be filled up against non-sanctioned posts. (32)
16. We have perused the advertisements against which the present petitioners were engaged. The advisements state that the posts are to be filled up on contract basis, specifying the essential qualification, selection process and terms of engagement etc. as has been done in the advertisements of 2022 issued after notification of Recruitment Rules but neither in the advertisements against which the applicants were appointed nor the impugned advertisements mention if the posts are to be filled in or are sanctioned or non-sanctioned, Or cadre or non cadre. In their offer of contractual engagement also, there is no such indication. It has been further stipulated in the advertisements that they will abide by CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 to the extent of applicability as in the case of impugned advertisements (Annexure A-6A). Therefore, we find similarity in the two advertisements issued and in both the cases the engagement was to be made on contractual basis.
17. Further, vide Recruitment Rules of 2022, though the respondents have created two broad categories, High Performance Analyst and Performance Analyst but the nomenclature of the posts within their categories and (33) responsibilities assigned, has remained the same more or less, as was the case earlier.
18. This is also not in dispute that the applicants were appointed through open advertisement on the recommendations of the select committee constituted by the competent authority and they also possessed the requisite qualification as prescribed in the RRs of 2022 after meeting the eligibility criteria and on being found eligible by duly constituted selection board. It is also seen that within two groups i.e. High Performance Analyst and Performance Analyst, the respondents have appointed persons as Physiotherapists, Nutritionists, Strength & Conditioning Experts, Anthropometries and Masseurs as in the case of applicants. There is no significant variation in the educational qualification either. For example in case of Physiotherapist, eligibility criteria in the first advertisement wherein the applicants were appointed was MPT+ 3 years experience whereas in the new RRs it is BPT + 5 years experience/MPT + 3 years experience. Similarly in case of Anthropometries, eligibility criteria in case of applicants was Masters' Degree in Physical Anthropology or Human Biology/PHD, whereas in case of newly notified RRs, its Bachelors' degree in Physical Anthropology or Human (34) Biology/Master or higher. A bare reading of the eligibility criteria with regard to other posts also indicates that by and large the eligibility criteria has remained the same in both the cases, albeit it has been reduced/diluted in some cases in the new RRs, in fact.
19. A perusal of the performance appraisal of the applicants indicates that it has been adjudged above board and even recommendations were made for giving performance based increments, keeping in view their above par performance.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that law of estoppel applies in the case of petitioners as they themselves appeared in the selection process with regard to the posts advertised in the context of the notified RRs and after participating in the process they cannot claim the relief sought for. However, given higher remuneration and better prospects if some of the applicants have appeared for the newly advertised posts, we do not see anything amiss, more particularly, when they have not questioned the exercise of cadre restructuring but only objected to their replacement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No.4578-4580/2022 decided on 16.06.2022 in the case of Krishna Rai (Dead) through LRs, vs BHU (35) through Registrar & Ors. held that there cannot be any estoppels in law and no aggrieved person can be deprived from his legal right as per the law of the land.
21. To our mind, since the basic principle in vogue is that the applicants cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee, which tantamounts to the infringement of legal rights of the applicants, the law of estoppel is not applicable.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the following judgments:
"a. State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta (2000) 10 SCC 311-Para b. State of U.P. v. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki (2009) 17 755 - Para 5 c. Bhankara Byas Managing Board v. Suresh-(2009) 7 SCC 515 - Para2 d. U.P. Juniors Doctors Action Committee v. B. Sheetal Nandwani 1992 Supp (1) SCC 680 - Para 8 e. Air India Limited v. Aditya Beri 2012 SCC Online Del 3014 Para 7 f. Co-operative Store Ltd., Super Bazaar v. Super Bazaar Karamchari Hitesh Sangathan 2012 SCC Online Del 5431 -Para 9 g. Rohit Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2021 SCC Online Del 2444 Para-10."
23. We have perused the same. The import of such (36) judgments is that interim relief especially pertaining to termination should not be granted in certain circumstances, such as, when no opinion is expressed about the propriety of the ground of termination or where if such relief is granted, the ultimate relief sought is automatically allowed without permitting the parties to place their respective cases at the time of final hearing. The judgments also deal with the issues like grant of interim relief at admission stage, which is available at disposal of the proceedings or grant of interim relief against termination while in probation. However, we find that the ratio of these judgments are not applicable in the present case. Because at the time of granting interim relief, prima facie, it was found that the claim of the applicants was getting sustenance from the judgments of this Tribunal dated 05.03.2021, wherein the Tribunal had referred to and relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Haryana & Others vs. Piara Singh as mentioned. Therefore, as an interim relief, the respondents were directed not to terminate the services of the applicants to maintain status quo qua their services till the next date of hearing.
23. In view of the above discussions, we do not see any difference between the petitioners and those appointed as (37) after notification as per the new RRs on contractual terms. We also do not find force in the argument that the employees engaged against advertisement issued in the context or new RRs were regular contractual employee and thus they were different from the petitioners. We find that in the instant case both the petitioners and the persons engaged as per the new RRs were duly qualified persons and were appointed following the due process of selection. It is not the case that the new RRs notified/incorporated some new posts with essential qualification which the petitioners did not possess. Therefore, we find that the distinction drawn between the petitioners and the new appointees is artificial as in both cases, appointments have been made following the due selection process with prescribed minimum qualification.
24. In the case of Piara Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an adhoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an adhoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an adhoc/temporary employee.(38)
46. Secondly, an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority."
25. Our considered view is that the instant case is covered by above notwithstanding the distinction made by the learned counsel for the respondents within the two sets of employees who were both contractual.
26. We also find that while the respondents notified the new RRs in 2022 in doing so the rules notified in 1992 were not superseded. The Sports Authority of India (Sports Sciences & Sports Medicine) Staff Recruitment Rules, 1992 in caption "Initial Constitution 4 (a)" provides the following:
"(a) All the employees in SAI working on adhoc basis on any of the post mentioned in the schedule on the date these rules come into force shall, after the approval by a duly constituted Committee, shall be deemed to have been appointed under these rules with effect from a date as may be decided by the said Screening Committee in each individual case."
27. Vide new Recruitment Rules 2022 under caption "Initial Constitution" the following provision was made:
"4. Initial Constitution:- All the employees in SAI working on any of the post mentioned in the Annexure-I on the date these rules come into force shall be deemed to have been appointed under these rules."(39)
But there is nothing to indicate that it superseded the "Initial Constitution" of 1992 rules and ironically both the rules have continued.
28. Notwithstanding the above, the case remains that the applicants possessed the prescribed qualifications and they have been selected through a process of open competition, therefore, their appointment was not 'illegal' but irregular and therefore they should be considered as part of the initial constitution as laid down in 2022 rules. Therefore, the right invested in the employees working on adhoc basis remained intact. In this regard, we also placed reliance on S.S. Moghe and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1981) 3 SCC 271, wherein it was held that when a new service is proposed to be constituted by the Government, it is fully within the competence of the Government to decide as a matter of policy the sources from which the personnel required for manning the Service are to be drawn.
29. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the OA is allowed with direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider the applicants as 'Initial Constituent' as per 2022 (4) Rules notified on 03.08.2022 and pass an appropriate reasoned order in this regard as (40) expeditiously as possible and in any case within 8 weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order and till service of such order(s), the applicants will not be terminated. Consequently the termination orders dated 09.02.2023 and 10.02.2023 are quashed. No costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /kdr/