Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide these petitions, the petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 22.06.2012, whereby in view of the report of the Inquiring Authority and decision taken by the respondent No.3/Ministry of Home Affairs (for short ‘MHA’), Recruitment Drive of 2008 (for short ‘RD2008’) was cancelled. Consequently, the appointments of the petitioners as teachers have been cancelled.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid order, therefore, all the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Facts in brief are that the respondent No.1/Navyug School Educational Society (for short ‘School’) made regular appointments of the teachers during the years 1999 to 2009 and thereby promoted 45 PGTs and 75 TGTs. As stated by the respondent No.1/School, about 170 teachers were engaged on contractual basis time-to-time from the year 2001 onwards apart from the regular appointments made by direct recruitment and departmental promotions. In the years, 2005, 2006 and 2007, the respondent No.1/School advertised in order to fill up the vacant posts of teachers on contractual basis. The said contractual appointments were advertised under the caption “Special Recruitment Drive for SC/ST/OBC”, which was exclusively for reserved candidates for engagement on contractual terms, pending regular recruitment and promotions. Accordingly, the applications were invited on plain papers and the remuneration was mentioned as ‘a consolidation salary’, but not as per regular scale of pay. Like many others, few former contractual teachers also applied afresh for the said posts and were also engaged on a purely contract basis on the specific condition that the period of engagement would be up to the end of a particular academic session or till the regular appointments against the posts occupied by the contract teachers were made, whichever is earlier. That was, purely a stop gap arrangement so that the studies of the students did not suffer.

4. The details of the contractual reserved category teachers engaged during the year 2005, 2006 and 2007 are as under:-

Year PGT TGT Primary Teachers

2005 06 (SC-02, OBC-04) 20(SC-09, OBC-10, ST-01) 17 (SC-04, ST-01, OBC-12

2006 Nil 05 (SC-03, ST-02) 08 (OBC-03, SC-05)

2007 01 (SC-01) 01 (SC-01) 13 (SC-03, ST-04, OBC-06)

5. Thereafter, vide an advertisement dated 17.06.2008, the respondent No.1/School had advertised for filling up 55 posts of TGTs and Primary Teachers (Academics & Activity) on regular basis. In response thereto, large number of applications were received. After scrutinizing the applications, a written test was conducted with the help of an independent agency, namely, SCERT, to select the applicants for the interview. The candidates who qualified the written test were called for interview. For final selection, weightage was given for performance in the written test, educational qualification and experience, more than prescribed in RRs and performance in interview. A comprehensive selection process was adopted while recruiting candidates on regular basis. The Director (Liason) of respondent No.2/New Delhi Municipal Council (for short ‘NDMC’), being a representative of SC/ST, was an integral part of the constituted Selection Board.

6. Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that originally 55 vacancies (TGT-24, Primary Teachers (Academics)-18), Primary Teachers (Activities)-13) were advertised on 17.06.2008, while reserving the right with respondent No.1/School to increase or decrease the same for the reasons considered appropriate by it. The posts occupied by the contractual teachers at the time of aforementioned advertisement were not taken into account as these were not actually vacant. However, as requested, 59 posts occupied by the contractual teachers were also added to be filled up through direct recruitment. At the time of advertisement, 59 contractual teachers were working in different schools of the respondent No.1. Out of 59, 58