SHASHI KUMAR vs M/o Law & Justice on 28 December 2018

ORAL ORDER

(Per ilon'ble Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman) lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench addressed a letter to the Regional Employment Exchange, Hyderabad to sponsor candidates for appointment on adlroc basis to the post of Hindi Translator in their Bench duly indicating the qualifications for the post. 20 candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the applicant was one of them. A written test was conducted on 27.03.2006 and the applicant was successful therein. He was issued call letter for viva voce and ultimately was selected and appointed vide order dated 1'l .07.2006 in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. The initial appointment was for a period of six months. Thereafter it was being extended from time to time and the benefit of the revised pay scales is also being extended.

2. The respondents issued Advertisement in the Employment News for the week 7-13 April 2012 inviting applications for the post of Senior Hlndi Translator. This OA is filed challenging the Advertisement. The appllcant contends that when he is trolding the very post for several years, there is absolutely no basis for the respondents to issue the Advertisement. The relief sought in the OA is to set aside the notification insofar as the concerned post of Senior Hindi Translator, and a direction to the respondents to regularise his sertices in the said post. \ ---r1 Ptge 2 o.f 4 oA 021/00440/2012 - { /\A

+

a4 o ffi oA 021/00440/2012

3. The respondents filed counter affi ccording to them, the appointment of the appricant was purery on adhoc basis for a rimited period and the advertisement was issued for filling the post on regular basis. lt is also stated that the proper agency to serect the candidates for the post of this nature is staff Selection commission and since the appointment of the applicant was not through that agency, the necessity has arisen to advertise the said post.

4. We heard Mr. K R K V prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. K Rajitha, rearned senior standing counser for the respondents.

5. lt is not in dispute that the appricant was inducted into service on the basis of written test and interview. Though it was mentioned in the initial order of appointment that it is for six months, it is being extended from time to time. Added to that, the applicant was put in a scale of pay and is being extended the benefit of revised pay scale, together with arrears. Under these circumstances, it needs to be examined whether the appointment of the applicant is to be treated as having been done on regular basis.

6. lt is brought to our notice that an identicar issue was deart with by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunar and rerief was granted and on the judgment of the Tribunar being reversed by the High court, the matter is now pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sp'ecial Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12818112018 Through the order dated 13.7.2018, the Hon,ble supreme court directed status quo to be maintained in that case. The

6\_-q \-;

Otl 021/00440/2012 learned counsel for the applicant and d counsel for the * respondents agree that the present OA stands on same footing.

7. We therefore dispose of the OA directing that, (a)The applicant shall be continued in the service under the existing terms and conditions till the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12818112018 pending before the Hon,bte Supreme Court is disposed of. gh{l

(b) lt shall be open to the applicant as well as the respondents to take such steps as are warranted in the light of the judgment which the Hon'ble Supreme Court may render in the SLP referred to above, B No order as to costs s"fiiq"fi nil c[ii.TiFii8 TBUE 90Pl ff 1il^,0, o A k-k-o-J ee\l' f;.g,;:'; , ly-tt-tel{ tl l:' ' i: .*'r-r:-o 11 i..-il.! ' "('"+' Poge 4 of4

n

4. Nt:2.r1,\11 i .-, "l: -. o' 'i , : ;ls F-r.:-r;