A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The petitioner herein is one of those 130 employees, working in different offices of the respondent-Airport Authority of India all over India, whose services were terminated, inter alia, on the ground that all these persons were appointed on ad hoc basis without any advertisement or calling candidates from Employment Exchange or following recruitment rules, which are required for any public appointment. Number of writ petitions came to be filed by all such employees challenging their termination on the plea that their appointments were later regularized after qualifying typing test or other tests and they were treated as regular employees. These writ petitions were heard together by a Division Bench of this Court. During the course of hearing, certain suggestions were mooted to resolve the problem as large number of persons were involved. After long deliberations spread over nearly three to four months, the parties were able to find an amicable solution of the problem and the Division Bench was able to dispose of the writ petitions on agreed terms with the following directions:

1. Petitioner as well as other employees whose services were terminated on similar grounds would be given an opportunity for selection in the proposed recruitment of Group C and Group D posts.

2. For Group D posts, suitability of the candidates would be adjudged by interview and wherever applicable, a trade test for the specific occupation. Additionally, suitability may be adjudged on the basis of familiarity with office procedures, basic knowledge of reading and writing, identification of files, nothings thereon etc.

3. For Group C posts, a written objective test, which would assess the aptitude, General Knowledge, the job knowledge, proficiency in English language would be held. A Typing Test would also be held. However, those of the petitioners/terminated employees, who have qualified the typing test of the respondents earlier, would be considered for exemption. This would be applicable where the record of Typing Test passed earlier is available. In addition, candidates would be interviewed.

4. Respondents would make available 50% of the vacancies for the

petitioners and others whose services have been terminated, subject to their qualifying the objective written/trade test. 50% vacancies to be filled based on the merit amongst the petitioners and others, whose services were terminated subject to their qualifying the written objective and trade test being selected in interview.

5. Age relaxation would also be made available to the petitioner and others whose services have been terminated. As regards weightage for experience and knowledge peculiar to the respondent organization, the same stands provided by provision of 50% of the vacancies being made available to them.

2. There were approximately 200 vacancies and as 50% of these vacancies were reserved for those terminated employees, the Court expressed that it was sufficient to reassure those petitioners to have a fair chance. Direction was also given that entire selection process be completed within four months. Though the present petition was also included in the order dated 30.4.2007 whereby these petitions were disposed of on the aforesaid terms, the petitioner herein filed an application stating that as she was a disabled person, having visual handicap, her case would be on a different footing and, thereforee, it was inadvertently disposed of along with other petitions. It was submitted that the matter was to be argued on merits. The respondents did not object to the hearing of the petition on merits and on this statement of the respondents, vide order dated 27.7.2007, it was clarified that the order dated 30.4.2007 would not cover this petition and as far as the instant petition is concerned, the said order was recalled. It is, in these circumstances, that we have heard this matter on merits.

3. We may also point out at this stage that the petitioner had filed anothe