Regular appointments supersede contractual employment as per the Public Notice dated 22.04.2016.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - Before we proceed further, it is pointed out that there is a typographical error in the order dated 30.09.2021.

1.1 The error, according to the counsel for the parties, concerns the date of regular appointment given in the last line of paragraph 3 of the said order. The date given in the said order is 23.06.2020, whereas it should read as 20.03.2020.

1.2 Accordingly, paragraph 3 of the order dated 30.09.2021 shall stand corrected, to that extent. The remaining parts of the said order will remain unaltered.

2. We had heard the matter at length on 30.09.2021. After hearing the counsel for the parties for some time, we had passed the following order.

"1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.04.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal") in OA No.764/2021.

2. The petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman was appointed as ministerial staff in the Government Girls Senior Secondary School in Nangloi, Delhi, albeit, on contractual basis.

2.1. The petitioners appointment was made on 17.05.2016. Thereafter, the appointment was renewed every year. The last renewal of the petitioners contractual engagement took place on 20.05.2020, albeit, with effect from 17.05.2020.

2.2 The record shows that, the petitioners contract was terminated on 23.06.2020.

2.3. The petitioners grievance is that, although, his contract was terminated, the contract of another employee i.e., one Ms. Ganga Kumari was renewed.

2.4. The respondents appear to have taken the position, before the Tribunal, that, the petitioners contract was terminated, as in his place, a regular employee was appointed. It was the respondents contention that, once the regular appointment was made, the petitioners contract was brought to an end.

3. We are informed by Ms. Prachi Goel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, that, although, the petitioners contract was renewed for another year i.e. on 20.05.2020, regular appointment was made on 23.06.2020.

4. Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, who appears on behalf of the respondents, submits that, there were only three posts available for appointment of ministerial staff. It is Ms. Seths contention that, all three posts stand filled up by the regular employees.

4.1 According to Ms. Seth, there are no posts left for appointment on regular basis, and since at this point in time, the respondents do not require ministerial staff, no contractual engagement(s) are required to be undertaken.

4.2. We have been also informed by Ms. Seth that, the petitioners grievance vis--vis Ms. Ganga Kumari does not survive, in view of the fact that, Ms. Ganga Kumari, in the interregnum, has resigned and a regular appointment has been made, in her place.

5. Given the aforesaid circumstances, in our view, nothing survives in the writ petition, if submissions made before us by Ms. Seth are to be believed.

5.1. Although, we have no reason to disbelieve Ms. Seths submissions, however, for the purposes of good order and record, Ms. Seth will file an affidavit, in line with the submissions she has made before us, before the next date of hearing. Inter alia, the said affidavit will also indicate the details of the person appointed on a regular basis, in place of Ms. Ganga Kumari.

5.2. The affidavit will be filed by Ms. Seth within the next ten days. A copy of the same will be furnished to Ms. Goel.

6. List the matter for compliance on 18.10.2021."

3. Pursuant to the directions given by us in the abovementioned order, Ms. Seth has filed an affidavit dated 16.10.2021.

3.1. A perusal of the aforementioned affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents would show that, they have taken the following stand:

"2. I state that as per Rule 2 of the Public Notice dated 22.04.2016, there were in all three (3) Posts of Ministerial Staff which could be filled (regular plus contractual) in the Respondent No.2 School, CGSSS School. The