1996 INSC 1729
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                Union of India (Uoi)

                                                           Vs.

                                              Vinod Shanker Tripathi

                                         (S Agrawal and G Nanavati JJ.)

                                                      22.11.1996

                                                       ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Special leave granted.

3. The respondents were employed as Laboratory Attainders on ad hoc basis for seasonal work in
the Government Opium and Alkaloid Works at Ghazipur. In October 1987, the department
conducted an interview for recruitment against three posts of Laboratory Attainders. The
respondents were not considered for selection since they did not fulfil the requirements laid down in
the draft recruitment rules for that post. The respondents and one Sri Prakash (who died later) filed
a petition (OA No. 1046 of 1987) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
(hereinafter referred to as ("the Tribunal") wherein they prayed that appointments on the post of
Laboratory Attainders should not be made from outside the list of ad hoc/seasonal Laboratory
Attainders and that all the permanent posts of Laboratory Attainders, including those three posts,
should be filled out of that list. By the impugned judgment dated 27-8-1993, the Tribunal has
allowed the said application of the respondents and has directed that since the respondents have
worked for a considerable period it would be just and proper that they be absorbed on regular basis
giving weightage of their services already rendered and that, if necessary, the rules in this respect
should also be framed. A review petition was filed by the appellants against the said judgment of the
Tribunal but it was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 29-6-1994 both on the ground of
limitation as well as on merits. Hence this appeal.

4. Shri N.N. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has urged that the
Tribunal was not justified in directing absorption of all the 13 applicants before the Tribunal when
only three vacancies were available. Shri Goswamy has also submitted that the respondents did not
possess the necessary educational qualifications for the post of Laboratory Attainders as per the
draft recruitment rules. Having regard to the fact that the respondents had been appointed as
Laboratory Attainders on ad hoc basis and had been working on that post for a number of years and
the rules had not been finally notified, it cannot be said the respondents could not be considered for
regular appointment on the post of Laboratory Attender. We, however find merit in the submission
of Shri Goswamy that the Tribunal was not justified in directing that all the 13 applicants be
absorbed and the rules be framed to enable such absorption. All that can be said is that the
respondents were entitled to be considered for appointment against the three posts of Laboratory
Attainders for which recruitment was being made. The appellants will take steps to consider the case
of the respondents for appointment on the three posts of Laboratory Attainders and, if any of them is
selected, he be appointed on that post. If any other vacancy has occurred or occurs in future on the
post of Laboratory Attender, the respondents may be considered for the same provided they fulfil
the requirement of the rules, if made, for appointment on the said post and they may be given age
relaxation for the purpose of such consideration. 5. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No
orders as to costs.