Madan B. Lokur, J. ( 1 ) RULE D. B. ( 2 ) THE Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and its Director of Education (hereinafter called the petitioners) have filed as many as 63 writ petitions under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) IN one or the other writ petitions, the challenge is to the directions given by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) in Original Applications decided on 7th May, 1999, 1st September, 1999 and 6th September, 1999. The Original Applications were similar in nature and so the directions were identical except for the change of a few words in the directions issued on 1st and 6th September, 1999. We will advert to this a little later. ( 4 ) WHEN these writ petitions were listed before us on 11th November, 1999 we made it clear to learned counsel for the parties that we proposed to finally hear all these petitions on the adjourned date. With the consent of learned counsel Civil Writ Petition No. 6363 of 1999 was taken as the main case for the purpose of filing affidavits, written synopsis etc. However, one of the learned counsel heard the writ petition number incorrectly and so he filed a counter affidavit in Civil Writ Petition No. 6375 of 1999. Mercifully, he referred to only two pages from that affidavit, saving us the labour of juggling huge paper books. ( 5 ) WE decided to hear these writ petitions out of turn for two reasons, namely, because it involved the jobs of 805 Respondents and secondly, because by a quirk of fate, 537 of the Respondents were said to continue to be in the employment of the Petitioners (having the benefit of interim stay orders) while 268 of them were said to be out of employment since they did not have the benefit of interim stay orders. We felt that all the 805 Respondents deserved to be treated equally, one way or the other. ( 6 ) WE wish to clarify two things in this regard. Firstly, the figures of 537 and 268 are theoretical. How many are actually employed today and how many are not employed today, does not seem to be known to anybody. This is because much water has flowed since May, 1999. ( 6 ) WE wish to clarify two things in this regard. Firstly, the figures of 537 and 268 are theoretical. How many are actually employed today and how many are not employed today, does not seem to be known to anybody. This is because much water has flowed since May, 1999. Secondly, the batch of 537 Respondents were the beneficiaries of the order/directions dated 7th May, 1999 while the batch of 268 Respondents were the beneficiaries of the orders dated 1st and 6th September, 1999. The change of a few words made all the difference between their continuing in employment or being out of it. ( 7 ) WE heard learned counsel for the parties on 29th and 30th November, 1999 and 1st and 7th December, 1999 when judgment was reserved. ( 8 ) THE facts of the case are many and some of them are unfortunately hidden in obscurity. We hope to state all essential facts for the decision of the case. The directions given by the Tribunal are, however, not so cumbersome and we propose to deal with them after we iron out the creases in the factual matrix. ( 9 ) WE are concerned with three categories of teachers employed by the Petitioners. These categories are Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs), Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) and Assistant Teachers (ATs) which category includes Language Teachers (LTs) and Domestic Science Teachers (DSTs ). We were told that as per the Recruitment Rules (which don t seem to have any name), PGTs are appointed 75% by promotion from amongst TGTs and 25% by direct recruitment; TGTs are appointed 75% by promotion from amongst ATs and 25% are directly recruited. ATs are all appointed by direct recruitment. ( 10 ) SOMETIME in March, 1998 the Delhi Government considered a proposal to re-employ retiring school teachers till the end of the academic session so as to maintain continuity in teaching. While this was being discussed, a proposal appears to have been mooted to engage teachers on a contract basis in schools run by the Petitioners in the interior area of Delhi including slum areas and resettlement colonies. This proposal appears to have been made because of a large number of continuing vacancies (about 3000 at that time) and also because of far too many vacancies in schools in the interior areas, which touched 40% in some schools. This proposal appears to have been made because of a large number of continuing vacancies (about 3000 at that time) and also because of far too many vacancies in schools in the interior areas, which touched 40% in some schools. ( 11 ) IN view of this "emergent situation" the Delhi Government apparently took a decision on 17th March, 1998 to re-employ retired/retiring teachers and to appoint teachers in schools in the interior area of Delhi on a contract basis and to fill up vacancies on a regular basis through the auspices of the Delhi Subordinate Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) which came into existence by a Notification dated 3rd April, 1997 (in accordance with a Resolution dated 4th October, 1996 of the "services Department" ). ( 12 ) IN accordance with this decision of the Government, the Petitioners took out an advertisement dated 7th April, 1998 in some newspapers inviting applications from eligible candidates for posting in schools located in rural and interior areas of Delhi. The list of such schools was also indicated in the advertisement but this list appears to have been amended at a later date. It was made clear in the advertisement that the appointments will be on a contract basis upto 31st December, 1998 which could be extended upto 30th April, 1999 which was the end of the academic session. The payment of a consolidated salary was also indicated. It was mentioned that retired teachers who have not attained the age of 65 years as on 31st March, 1998 could also apply. We were, however told at the Bar that no retired teachers were engaged on contract basis. The advertisement finally stated that a walk-in interview would be held. ( 13 ) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the Petitioners, to total number of persons appointed on contract basis was 1007. She also stated that the appointments were made without scrutinising the genuineness of the documents, without verifying the character and antecedents of the applicants and without following any procedure prescribed for selection under the Rules. This doe snot appear to be correct because in the counter affidavit filed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6375 of 1999 it has been stated that the original documents were scrutinised and the qualifications were verified before the appointments were made. Two documents were annexed in support of this averment. This doe snot appear to be correct because in the counter affidavit filed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6375 of 1999 it has been stated that the original documents were scrutinised and the qualifications were verified before the appointments were made. Two documents were annexed in support of this averment. These documents are a Memorandum dated 12th August, 1998 requiring the production of all educational certificates in original for verification and a proforma of verification of particulars. We also find from paragraph 4 of the impugned order dated 7th May, 1999 that the Petitioners had worked out some norms in the month of May, 1998 and these norms were on the lines of the relevant recruitment rules and the selections were made on the basis of these norms. ( 14 ) PURSUANT to the advertisement and the walk-in-interview, the Petitioners began making appointments on contract basis and this process of appointment continued for quite some time apparently from July, 1998 onwards upto January, 1999. Those teachers who had joined before 31st December, 1998 got extensions. Some of the teachers were on contract upto March, 1999 and some upto 30th April, 1999. ( 15 ) AS regards filling up the vacancies on a regular basis, the Petitioners appear to have approached the Board in June, 1998 for selecting candidates by direct recruitment. ( 16 ) THEREAFTER, some more vacancies arose and so the Petitioners again approached the Board in March, 1999 for filling up these vacancies by direct recruitment. We were told that in terms of the requests made to the Board in June, 1998 and March, 1999 about 688 vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruitment. The Board appears to have issued public advertisements for recruitment only in March and June, 1999. We were also told that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the recruitment process had been completed and almost all the direct recruits have since been appointed. Promotions of Assistant Teachers and TGTs and PGTs have also taken place in many cases and are expected to be completed very soon. ( 17 ) 537 teachers whose contract was due to come to an end on 31st March, 1999 approached the Tribunal praying that the termination of their services with effect from 31st March, 1999 be declared illegal and also praying for the same pay which was being paid to regular teachers. ( 17 ) 537 teachers whose contract was due to come to an end on 31st March, 1999 approached the Tribunal praying that the termination of their services with effect from 31st March, 1999 be declared illegal and also praying for the same pay which was being paid to regular teachers. The Tribunal granted an order of status quo and it is on the basis of this interim order that these teachers are said to be continuing in their jobs. ( 18 ) 268 teachers approached the Tribunal after 31st March, 1999 and the Tribunal did not find it appropriate to direct their reinstatement by an interim order. ( 19 ) IN the first batch of cases involving 537 teachers, the Tribunal allowed their Original Applications by the impugned order dated 7th May, 1999 and passed the following directions: [we are really concerned only with directions (A) and (B)] " (A) Applicants shall be allowed to continue in the present posts till regular candidates duly selected by DSSSB/or appropriate authority are available to replace the applicants. (B) Those selected regularly shall first be posted in the existing vacant positions and only if enough vacant posts are not available, they should be posted against the posts held by ad hoc appointees, Replacement of the latter should be on the principle of last come first go. Those so displaced should be accommodated in vacancies that may be existing in other districts. (C) The ad hoc appointees shall be paid minimum pay in the pay scale of regular teachers plus DA in terms of law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Daily Rated Casual Labourer Vs. UOI and Ors. ( 1988 (1) SCC 122 ). (D) No ad hoc appointee shall be replaced by any newly appointed ad hoc employee. (E) Those of the applicants who have applied or may apply for regular selection, necessary relaxation in age shall be given to the extent of the period of service put in by them. (F) There shall be no order as to costs. " IN the other two batches of Original Applications, the Tribunal passed identical orders except with regard to direction (A) where the words "applicants shall be allowed to continue in the present posts till regular candidates. . . . . . (F) There shall be no order as to costs. " IN the other two batches of Original Applications, the Tribunal passed identical orders except with regard to direction (A) where the words "applicants shall be allowed to continue in the present posts till regular candidates. . . . . . " were substituted by the words "applicants shall be re-engaged on the present posts forthwith till regular candidates. . . . . . . . " ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioners stated on affidavit that the sanctioned strength of PGTs in the Delhi Administration is 7,266 and the sanctioned strength of TGTs (including LTs and DSTs) with which we are concerned is 25, 362 and the sanctioned strength of ATs with which we are concerned is 2,556. She also stated that the total number of sanctioned posts from Principal downwards is 43,109. According to her, looking to the sheer magnitude of numbers there were bound to be vacancies at any given point of time either on account of superannuation, voluntary retirement, resignation or death. Apart from this, many teachers may also be on leave. She submitted that the effect of the directions given by the Tribunal was that the Respondents will continue indefinitely because it was impossible for the Petitioners to have a zero vacancy situation. This was all the more so because the process of direct recruitment is, by its very nature, time consuming. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that there was no warrant for the Tribunal to direct the Petitioners to first fill up the existing vacant posts and only after all of them are filled up that the posts held by the Respondents should be touched and if in the meanwhile other vacancies arose then the displaced Respondents should be accommodated against those vacancies. She did not attempt to challenge directions (C), (D) and (E) given by the Tribunal, and we think, rightly. ( 22 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioners was rather vehement in her submission that all the Respondents were entitled to apply for direct recruitment through the Board which had issued advertisements in March and June, 1999. According to her, if the Respondents chose not to apply for direct recruitment through the Board, they should not be given any sympathetic consideration by this Court. According to her, if the Respondents chose not to apply for direct recruitment through the Board, they should not be given any sympathetic consideration by this Court. She further submitted that as per her information, many, if not most, of the Respondents had applied for direct recruitment. In this context, she drew our attention to our order dated 25th October, 1999 directing the Respondents to file an affidavit stating whether they had competed in the examination held by the Board and whether they had cleared the same or not. None of the Respondents have filed an affidavit in compliance with our order dated 25th October, 1999. We, therefore, assume that all of them did compete in the examination. Learned counsel submits that some Respondents were able to make the grade and are, therefore, no longer interested in these writ petitions and it is only those who were rejected by the Board or who chose not to apply for direct recruitment who are contesting these writ petitions. According to her, teachers who have been rejected for selection by an impartial Board should not be allowed to continue and take advantage of something which arose as a result of an emergent situation. ( 23 ) FINALLY, it was submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that they can manage their affairs with the existing number of teachers and they are no longer interested in making any appointments on a contract basis. The adjustment of vacancies can always be met by shuffling teachers around and it is not as if the situation is completely out of control. It is very much under control and it is possible for the Petitioners to carry on with their work without the assistance of the Respondents. ( 24 ) AS regards the vacancy position as on date, learned counsel for the Petitioners filed an affidavit before us stating that there are some vacancies. The figures given were totally incomprehensible partly because we suffer from numerical dyspepsia; but, the point that she wanted to make through this jungle of numbers is that there were not too many vacancies, and of those that existed, many of them were reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. According to her, none of the Respondents belong to any of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and so they cannot seek to take advantage of the existing vacancy position. According to her, none of the Respondents belong to any of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and so they cannot seek to take advantage of the existing vacancy position. ( 25 ) LEARNED counsel for the Respondents contended that the issues raised in these writ petitions are not longer res integra and they relied upon a judgment of this Court in Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Dr. V. S. Chauhan, 1998 VI AD (Delhi) 81. Special Leave Petitions being Special Leave Petition (C) No. 949-957/1998 preferred by the Petitioners therein were summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court on 1st December, 1998 and Review Petitions (C) No. 547-555/1999 filed by the Petitioners therein were also dismissed on 28th April, 1999. They also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Sangeeta Narang and Ors. vs. Delhi Administration etc. , 1998 (6) ATC 405 against which order, a Special Leave Petition was preferred by the Government of NCT of Delhi which Special Leave Petition was also summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, of course, contended that these cases were distinguishable. ( 26 ) WITH regard to the ability of the Petitioners to manage their affairs without the Respondents, it was submitted by their learned counsel that the Petitioners had recently issued a letter dated 20th August, 1999 intimating their decision to re-employ "retired teachers against the existing vacancies for a period upto 31. 3. 2000 or till the teachers regularly appointed join, whichever is earlier. . . . . ". According to learned counsel for the Respondents this letter clearly showed that the Petitioners wanted to somehow or the other dislodge the Respondents and that their submission that they could manage their affairs without the Respondents was not bona fide. ( 27 ) IN view of the submissions made before us, we have to first consider whether the facts of Sangeeta Narang and V. S. Chauhan are similar to the facts in the present writ petitions. ( 28 ) IN Sangeeta Narang, the Delhi Administration had engaged doctors on an ad hoc basis for short durations while in V. S. Chauhan, it had engaged doctors on a short term contract. ( 28 ) IN Sangeeta Narang, the Delhi Administration had engaged doctors on an ad hoc basis for short durations while in V. S. Chauhan, it had engaged doctors on a short term contract. In both the cases, the recruitments were made in view of the fact that there were, at any given point of time, about 150 vacancies in various hospitals and dispensaries managed by the Delhi Administration. Regular recruitment to these posts were to be made through the Union Public service Commission which was a time consuming process. Consequently, the Delhi Administration made ad hoc appointments or appointments on contract to relieve the pressure and strain on the health care services. ( 29 ) THE syllogisms in the present cases are identical. There were vacancies which put a strain on the teaching community. Regular appointments through the Board were a time consuming process. Consequently, it became essential for the Petitioners to engage teachers on a short term contract basis to relieve the strain and ensure continuity in teaching. ( 30 ) HOWEVER, learned counsel for the Petitioners stressed two distinguishing facts, namely, that in the present cases, direct recruitment through the Board had already taken place and departmental promotions were being effected. In view of this, the Petitioners could manage their affairs but the same was not so in Sangeeta Narang and V. s. Chaudhan. The second distinguishing fact that was urged was that the Respondents were those teachers who either chose not to compete in the examinations or had failed in the open examinations, which situation was not present in Sangeeta Narang and V. S. Chauhan. ( 31 ) IT is true that in these writ petitions, recruitment has since been made through the Board and promotions have been effected. This is a fact which will have a bearing on the ultimate relief to be granted to the Petitioners. This fact is of no relevance so far as the legal principles laid down in Sangeeta Narang and V. S. Chauhan are concerned. The legal principles laid down in these two cases were that even though the appointments (of the Respondents) originate in a contract, by virtue of the fact that they become Government servants, they acquire a certain status. They are then governed by the rules and regulations applicable to the post that they hold and not by the terms of the contract. They are then governed by the rules and regulations applicable to the post that they hold and not by the terms of the contract. In other words, their relationship is to be governed by the rights and duties imposed upon both the employer and the employee by public law. This jural relationship can be severed in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons, one of them being that the services of the employees are not longer required. ( 32 ) THEREFORE, what is required to be examined in the facts of these writ petitions is whether the Petitioners can manage their affairs without the services of the Respondents or persons similarly placed as the Respondents. ( 33 ) THE Petitioners are the best judges of their requirements. They are dealing with about 40,000 teachers on a daily basis and presumably they know how to run the schools under their jurisdiction. Considerable weight has, necessarily, to be given to their opinion. We cannot, with our limited expertise, claim to be able to tell the Petitioners how to mange their affairs - nor do we propose to do so. Ordinarily, therefore, we would have accepted the statement of the Petitioners that they can manage their affairs without the services of the Respondents. ( 34 ) UNFORTUNATELY, by seeking to requisition the services of retired teachers through the letter dated 20th August, 1999, the Petitioners have let the cat out of the bag (as it were ). If they could manage their affairs without the services of the Respondents, what was the reason for seeking to re-employ retired teachers? ( 35 ) WE can fathom only one reason, namely, that the services of the Respondents (or others similarly placed) are required. It is a different matter that the Petitioners have now chosen to avail the services of retired teachers who are tried and tested as against the Respondents who have not been found suitable for recruitment by the Board. Which set of teachers the Petitioners want to engage is within their domain provided, however, the decision conforms to Article 14 of the Constitution. But, the inarticulated substance of the matter here is that the Petitioners do require additional hands and this belies theircontention that they can manage their affairs without the services of the Respondents. Which set of teachers the Petitioners want to engage is within their domain provided, however, the decision conforms to Article 14 of the Constitution. But, the inarticulated substance of the matter here is that the Petitioners do require additional hands and this belies theircontention that they can manage their affairs without the services of the Respondents. Strictly speaking, yes they can manage their affairs but only by resorting to a subterfuge - instead of the Respondents, engage somebody else. It is unfortunate that such a stance has commended itself to the State. ( 36 ) IT may be mentioned, en passant, that we have been informed through the written submissions filed by one of the learned counsel for the Respondents that the implementation of the letter dated 20th August, 1999 was stayed by the Tribunal. The Petitioners have not challenged this order of the Tribunal. ( 37 ) UNDER the circumstances, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Petitioners do require the services of additional teachers. As per the letter dated 20th August, 1999 this requirement is for a period upto 31st March, 2000 (the end of the academic session) or till regularly appointed teachers join, whichever is earlier. The Petitioners would have preferred retired teachers, but they have been restrained from engaging them. Consequently, we see no reason why the Respondents, most of whom are already in place, should be dislodged, especially at the fag end of the academic session. ( 38 ) FURTHERMORE, the Petitioners have not challenged direction (D) given by the Tribunal which is to the effect that no ad-hoc appointee shall be replaced by any newly appointed ad-hoc appointee. Therefore, on what basis were the Petitioners wanting to re- employ retired teachers? Surely, it could not have been on a regular basis. On the one hand, the Petitioners say that they are content with direction (D), but on the other, they try to bypass it. The stand of the Petitioners is a little baffling. ( 39 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioners, however, insisted that the present cases were distinguishable inasmuch as in these cases, the Respondents had participated in an open competition and had failed to make the grade. The stand of the Petitioners is a little baffling. ( 39 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioners, however, insisted that the present cases were distinguishable inasmuch as in these cases, the Respondents had participated in an open competition and had failed to make the grade. According to learned counsel, there was no reason why teachers, who had failed an open competitive examination, should be allowed to teach students - who are being taught so that they do not fail (and in this case by teachers who have themselves failed ). ( 40 ) WE agree with learned counsel for the Petitioners. We are not in favour of persons rejected by the Board being allowed to continue in their posts. But, unfortunately, no alternative solution was forthcoming from the Petitioners - except a bald suggestion that they can manage their affairs on their own - which suggestion is contradicted by cold facts. Re-employment of retired teachers was one possible solution. But this process was halted by the Tribunal and the Petitioners chose to keep silent. Furthermore, as pointed out above, the Petitioners have no grievance with regard to direction (D) given by the Tribunal. The Petitioners have wovan a web and have, unfortunately, got enmeshed in it. ( 41 ) LEARNED counsel for the Respondents contended that merely because their clients had not succeeded in the open competitive examinations, it was no ground to dislodge them from their position. Reliance was placed on a passage from V. S. Chauhan. ( 42 ) ON going through the above decision we find that the fact that the Respondents therein were "rejects" was held to be not material for the grant of the benefit of equal pay for equal work. The Division Bench of this Court did not take this factor into consideration for the purposes of retaining them or not retaining them in service. ( 43 ) WE are of the view that persons who have been rejected by a duly constituted Board should not be allowed to continue to hold their posts, but in the facts of the present cases and in the absence of any viable alternative, the Respondents have necessarily to be allowed to continue till they are replaced by regular appointees/promotees as the case may be. We, therefore, do not feel it appropriate to set aside the substance of direction (A) given by the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not feel it appropriate to set aside the substance of direction (A) given by the Tribunal. ( 44 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioners cited quite a few decisions of the Supreme Court in support of her contentions. None of these decisions were quite apposite to the facts of these writ petitions (the facts of these cases being most peculiar) and so we do not propose to deal with them. The facts of these cases are similar to Sangeeta Narang and V. S. Chauhan and we have dealt with those decisions. ( 45 ) WITH regard to direction (B) issued by the Tribunal, we feel that this is really concerned with the mechanics of working out direction (A ). This is clearly not within the domain of judicial review. Once a direction is given, how it is to be adhered to or worked out is to be decided by the concerned authority which is given the direction. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to say, "this is how our direction should be complied with. " It is also not within the Tribunal s ken to decide whom to post where and why. Consequently, we see no alternative but to quash direction (B) given by the Tribunal. ( 46 ) EVEN otherwise, we find direction (B) to be completely unworkable. We are not living in Utopia and, therefore, it is too much to expect a zero vacancy situation to be achieved. In terms of direction (B), if a zero vacancy position is not achieved, many Respondents will continue to remain as teachers, almost in perpetuity. These Respondents will have no reason to appear for subsequent examinations to be conducted by the Board for direct recruitment and in any case we will be permitting persons who have not been selected by the Board to continue to be in position, more or less, perpetually. Surely, this cannot be permitted. We may add that the last sentence of direction (B) postulates that a zero vacancy situation cannot be achieved. ( 47 ) IN view of our discussion, we need to give a little thought to the final order that should be passed. Under somewhat congruent circumstances the Supreme Court had in Rattan Lal and Ors. vs. Stage of Haryana and Ors. ( 47 ) IN view of our discussion, we need to give a little thought to the final order that should be passed. Under somewhat congruent circumstances the Supreme Court had in Rattan Lal and Ors. vs. Stage of Haryana and Ors. , (1985) 4 SCC 43 directed the State Government "to allow all those teachers who are now holding these posts on ad hoc basis to remain in those posts till the vacancies are duly filled up. " The directions given by the Tribunal in Sangeeta Narang (and upheld by the Supreme Court) were to a similar effect. So also in V. S. Chauhan (also upheld by the Supreme Court ). ( 48 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we too would direct the Petitioners to allow the Respondents to remain in their posts till their vacancies are duly filled up according to Rules. If the replacements of some of the Respondents have already been found, those Respondents must give way to the regular appointees regardless of any interim orders in their favour. Such of the Respondents who were out of employment because they were not beneficiaries of any interim orders of the Tribunal should be reinstated by 31st December, 1999 unless their posts have been occupied by regular incumbents. Since learned counsel for the Petitioners stated on affidavit that there are not too many vacancies, we think that many of the Respondents will not benefit. This cannot be helped. ( 49 ) THE Petitioners should complete their entire exercise of disengaging some teachers (wherever necessary) or re-employing them (if necessary) on or before 31st December, 1999. Direction (A) is upheld to this extent. Direction (B) given by the Tribunal shall stand quashed. Directions (C), (D) and (E) given by the Tribunal were not challenged before us and so are maintained. ( 50 ) ALL these writ petitions are disposed of as directed above, but with no order as to costs.