P. S. MISHRA, C. J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER-APPELLANTS 1 and 2 were appointed in 1986 and the third petitioner-appellant was appointed in 1987 as L. D. C.-cum-Typist in the establishment of the first respondent - Central Institute of English and Foreign languages. They were recruited, it is not in dispute, by the procedure of inviting nominations from the Employment Exchange and interview before appointment, but, it is said, were given purely temporary appointment. They, however, it is not in dispute, were given three months extension each time with break to introduce terminals of the appointment and termination of service in a manner that although they have been continued ever since their appointment in their respective posts of L. D. C-cum-Typist, they are still not absorbed in the service and according to the first respondent, are thus purely temporary employees having ad hoc contractual appointment from time to time. It is alleged, however, that the first respondent sought sponsoring of names for regular appointments as L. D. C-cum-Typist and, it is alleged, in december, 1988 the Employment Exchange forwarded the names from which candidates were selected viz. , 2nd to 9th respondents and the first respondent recruited them to the permanent appointment of L. D. C-cum-Typist. It is noticeable that the first respondent - institution is founded by the University grants Commission and according to its pleadings, as per the recruitment rules for the non-teaching staff vacancies in group C and D, it is alleged, L. D. C- cum-Typist come under group C or D, have to be filled from the candidates selected out of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. According to the first respondent when a decision was taken to fill up the regular post in group C and D, it proceeded accordingly to seek sponsoring of the candidates by the Employment Exchange and thus followed the procedure thereafter to interview them and select from the panel sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

( 2 ) IT is seen thus from the facts above that the first respondent got the petitioners from a panel sponsored by the Employment Exchange when it assessed the vacancies, but before making any regular appointments, selected them for temporary appointments and continued them in service. But to retain the temporary character of their respective appointments, first respondent introduced intermittently break in service, whereas in the case of respondents 2 to 9 when selected from out of the panel sponsored by the Employment exchange, they have been given permanent appointment. The facts above have posed mainly two questions viz. , (1) whether when work has regularly been available and the petitioners-appellants have been found suitable for the rank and have been engaged continuously eversince their initial appointment intermittent break for showing the appointments given to them as ad hoc or temporary, is an honest act of the employer and if it is not an honest act of the employer, whether such break in service has to be ignored to treat the petitioners-appellants to hav e been holding their respective posts continuously for the purposes of benefits of service as holders of the rank or the position of L. D. C-cum-Typist and for the said reason are entitled to reckon their respective seniority in the rank of L. D. C-cum-Typist with effect from the date of initial appointment and continuous service; and (2) Whether by virtue of their continuous service and the rank held by them ever since their initial appointment as L. D. C-cum-Typist, the petitioners - appellants are entitled to equality in the scale of pay and all consequential service benefits along with the persons who are recruited allegedly substantively and appointed or posted against permanent vacancies. To maintain, however, as a class persons who have been recruited in service but have been continued with intermittent breaks and those who have been posted against the substantive vacancies, first respondent has s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document