JUDGMENT

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to impugn the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal) passed in OA No.3203/2002 dated 21.2.2003 and in RA No.63/2003 on 3.4.2003 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid OA and RA filed by the petitioners.

2. The petitioners had approached the Tribunal since they apprehended discontinuation of their services on the expiry of the contractual period of their engagement by the respondents, and therefore sought the quashing of the order dated 27.11.2002 whereby it was decided not to give extension to them after expiry of the contractual period on 10.12.2002. The petitioners had also staked a claim for regularisation of their services.

3. A commission of enquiry known as Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Enquiry was set up on 16.12.92 to enquire into the demolition of the Ram Janam Bhoomi Babri Masjid at Ayodhya. The initial tenure of the Commission was three years, but due to various complications the assignment of the Commission was not completed and its term has been extended from time to time. The petitioners were engaged temporarily on ad hoc basis by the Commission by entering into contracts in the year 1994. The ad hoc appointments of the petitioners were extended from time to time with the extension of the Commission's tenure after giving a break of few days. The petitioners were informed that their services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons, and it was also made clear to them that they would not stake any claim for regular absorption. The petitioners were working as Peons/LDCs.

4. It appears that a ban was imposed by the Government on engagement of persons on ad hoc basis from the open market. Consequently, a proposal was made to replace the petitioners with ad hoc deputationists from offices of the Central/State Governments/Undertakings after the expiry of their extended contractual tenure i.e from 10.12.2002 onwards. Apprehending discontinuation, the petitioners approached the Tribunal and by an order dated 9.12.2002, status quo was ordered to be maintained by the Tribunal.

5. The respondents opposed the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the said commission was handling a time-bound assignment and the commission did not exist as a department of Government for an indefinite period. There were no permanently sanctioned posts against which the petitioners could have been recruited. However, since the assignment could not be completed within the initial tenure of three years, the Commission was being given extension, from time to time. The petitioners had been engaged by the commission temporarily on contractual basis for limited durations and it was made clear to them that their appointments were ad hoc and for a limited period and that they would not claim the right of regularisation.

6. The respondents also stated that the appointment of the petitioners was not made in a regular way through the employment exchange, and that they had been picked up randomly from the open market without laying any stress on registration with the employment exchange. The respondents also relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court to contend that even where there are sanctioned posts and recruitment rules, regularisation of casual employees can not be claimed as a matter of right by such employees, who have been granted back door entry, without properly advertising the ports to which they are recruited and without subjecting them to the prescribed selection process. Merely because such persons have been serving for long years, they are not entitled to claim regularisation as a matter of right.

7. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the aforesaid OA primarily by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors., (1992)