The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraudulent and illegal appointments are void ab-initio and do not confer any legal right to the employee. The judgment emphasized the need for a detailed departmental inquiry into fraudulent appointments.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the Government of NCT of Delhi has challenged an order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal'), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. 4228/2018.

2. The brief facts as narrated by the petitioners are that on 28.05.2010, Department of Social Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi had engaged Welfare Officer/Protection Officers on contract basis from the list provided by an outsourcing agency, namely Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited (ICSIL) and these contractual engagements were made from time to time. Later on when the relevant records were examined, discrepancies in initial engagement order in respect of the present respondent were noticed and her case was not submitted for ex-post facto approval to be obtained from the Hon'ble Lt. Governor.

2.1. As per the petitioners, the respondent's name did not figure in the sponsored list but her engagement order was issued separately on 12.08.2010 and renewed on 12.09.2011 onwards. Her order of engagement states that her candidature was sponsored by ICSIL vide letter dated 25.05.2010; which resulted in her being appointed as a Welfare Officer. However, in fact, name of one Ms Priyanka, daughter of Shri Anil Kumar was sponsored by ICSIL and was shown at serial no. 12 of the list forwarded by ICSIL and who had been working in the Welfare Department since the date of her initial engagement.

2.2. It is submitted that, the present respondent was appointed fraudulently against the name of the said Priyanka, although her name was not there in the list of candidates sponsored by ICSIL. Sufficient opportunities were given to the respondent vide letters dated 14.03.2018 and 02.05.2018 to prove and provide documentary evidence to the effect that she was registered with the manpower agency M/s ICSIL and that her name was sponsored for engagement to the post of Welfare Officer by M/s ICSIL. The respondent failed to provide any such document in proof.

2.3. The initial engagement of the respondent was not made as per the procedure adopted by the Government, which was to offer contractual employment to the candidates sponsored by ICSIL; no ex-post facto approval of the Lt. Governor concerning her initial engagement and subsequent continuation was sought. Consequently, vide order dated 23.10.2017 her contractual engagement was discontinued.

2.4. The respondent filed O.A bearing no. 3101/2018 before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 17.08.2018, the Tribunal directed the present petitioners to decide the representation submitted by the respondent by passing a speaking order. In compliance thereto, a detailed speaking order dated 17.09.2018 was passed, reiterating the above-mentioned facts and after stating that the respondent had illegally taken advantage of having common first name with another person, who was actually and originally sponsored by ICSIL and, who had joined the department and has been continuously working.

2.5. Thereafter, the respondent filed O.A. no. 4228/2018 before the Tribunal challenging the rejection order dated 17.09.2018 on the ground that she is fully qualified and eligible for appointment as Welfare Officer on contractual basis and she cannot be replaced with another contractual employee. Vide interim order dated 15.11.2018 petitioners were directed to engage the services of respondent on contract basis, provided work is available and in preference to her juniors/freshers/outsourced employees. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, specifically taking the ground that the present respondent was not sponsored by ICSIL, and therefore, the petitioners sought dismissal of the O.A. filed in the Tribunal.

2.6. The respondent filed Contempt Petition no. 356/2019 seeking implementation of interim order dated 15.11.2018. This contempt petition was closed vide order dated 19.01.2021 on the ground that the direction was to avail the servi