- (1.) All these five writ petitions have been filed by different petitioners, who were working with the respondents, aggrieved by the action of the respondents in discontinuing them from service by changing nomenclature/eligibility of the post held by them.
(2.) Anurag Kumar Sharma, petitioner in Writ Petition No.16221/2013, was initially appointed with the respondent National Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Centre at Jaipur, on the post of Executive Officer vide order dated 13.08.2008. His appointment was made on contract basis on payment of consolidated salary, initially for a period of one year but the same was later on extended from time to time. The Regional Director of the national Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Centre, Jaipur, vide his letter dated 09.07.2013 on the basis of his performance, which was assessed to be 6.5 on the scale of 8, recommended to the Joint Director (Administration) at the Headquarters, NOIDA, for extension of services of the petitioner. But the name of the petitioner Anurag Kumar Sharma was not included in the order dated 23.07.2013 by which extension was granted to all other contractual employees. The petitioner approached this court when the respondents issued first advertisement on 30.08.2013 with permission of the head office for appointment on the post held by the petitioner. Such request was sent by email on 02.09.2013. It was proposed to invite applications from candidates for appointment on that post on interview basis. In the writ petition therefore it was prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents setting aside the order dated 23.07.2013, by which contractual appointment was not extended. Further prayer was for a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as Executive officer (non-academic).
(3.) This court while issuing notice of the writ petition on 18.09.2013 directed that in the meanwhile, if any person is appointed on the post of Executive officer, it will remain subject to final outcome of the writ petition. When the matter was listed on 05.02.2014 after service of notice on the respondents, this court directed the respondents not to extend the contractual employment of any other person, if made, however, left it open for the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the same terms as before. Third interim order dated 09.05.2014 was passed in other four Writ Petitions to the effect that in the ongoing process for selection pursuant to advertisement (Annexure-3) the respondents may give preference to petitioners and others, whoever has longer duration of working with them, subject to their satisfying the eligibility criteria and may not engage fresh hands till petitioners and other contractual appointees, who have rendered services with them for longer period, are exhausted.;