(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 7th January 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in separate O.As. filed by the petitioners No. 1 to 4 as O.As. 748 of 1994, 749 of 1994, 750 of 1994 and 751 of 1994, by which all the O.As. have been dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, called for the names of suitable candidates for the post of Lower Division Clerk in his office on ad hoc basis. The Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Bhubaneswar was requested to sponsor the names of at least 40 number of suitable candidates. In the prescribed proforma of notification of vacancies, the age limit was mentioned as 18 to 25 years, the upper age limit being relaxable by 5 years in case of S.C. and ST. candidates. The request to sponsor names was made vide letter dated 4.6.1991. Thereafter, according to the statement, which came through the counter affidavit filed before this Court on behalf of the opposite parties, a type of writing test followed by interview was conducted and candidates were selected by the Selection Committee in which petitioners' name found place. Under the rules applicable to the department namely the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Recruitment) Regulations, 1965, the recruitment was to be made by the Departmental Committee. However, later such recruitments were being conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. At the time of selection of the petitioners by the Corporation, it was the Staff Selection Commission which was the recruitment body and, as such, the petitioners' recruitment by the Corporation was made on ad hoc basis. The petitioners were initially appointed purely on ad hoc basis for three months. But later on, their period of appointment was extended from time to time. They all were appointed in the year 1992 for three months or till availability of the regularly selected candidates, whichever is earlier. This appointment, when continued from time to time, lastly made for an indefinite period. But the fact is that the status of the petitioners remained the same, i.e., ad hoc.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite parties has also placed reliance on the decision in Director General, ESIC and Anr. v. Shri Trilok Chand and Ors. (supra) and submitted that the case of the instant petitioners is also similar to that case.