Ad Hoc Appointee Cannot Be Confirmed Without Statutory Regularization: Allahabad High Court

In a significant ruling reinforcing the sanctity of public employment rules, the Allahabad High Court has held that an employee appointed on an ad hoc basis cannot be directly confirmed in service without first undergoing the prescribed statutory regularization process. A Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla dismissed a special appeal by seven individuals who had served as Seasonal Collection Amins, ruling that a confirmation order lacking any legal foundation is void ab initio and confers no enforceable right.

The Long and Winding Road of Litigation

The appellants were initially engaged as Seasonal Collection Amins in District Maharajganj in 1976. In February 1990, the Tehsildar, Farenda reported that eight posts of Collection Amin were vacant. Acting on this report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate appointed the appellants as Collection Amins on an ad hoc basis on 09.02.1990 .

However, the District Magistrate terminated their services on 31.03.1990 , citing a government ban on filling vacancies. The High Court stayed this order in a writ petition, and the termination was later recalled as the District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction. While the petition was pending, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 13.03.1991 purporting to confirm the appellants in service.

Their services were terminated again on 06.11.1995 under the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 . That order was quashed by the High Court on 26.05.2004 with liberty to the State to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Acting on this liberty, the Sub-Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice and, on 19.04.2006 , annulled both the ad hoc appointment and the confirmation order, holding them illegal. The writ petition against this order was dismissed by a Single Judge, leading to the intra-court appeal.

Competing Contentions

The appellants argued that their ad hoc appointment was made against substantive vacancies by the competent authority and that the confirmation was valid. They contended that no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged against them, that their names appeared in the consolidated seniority list of Collection Amins published in 1993, and that they had rendered long service, including 14 years as Seasonal Collection Amins. They claimed protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and argued that the State was estopped from questioning the confirmation.

The State countered that Seasonal Collection Amins are engaged under executive instructions without statutory force, and the U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 do not provide for ad hoc appointments. The confirmation order was passed without any statutory authority and during the pendency of litigation, making it void ab initio .

Court's Scrutiny: No Statutory Foundation

The court examined the confirmation order under the applicable statutory frameworks. Under the 1974 Rules , appointment as Collection Amin requires recruitment through a Selection Committee, which was not followed. Under the U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 , as amended, the appellants did not meet the cut-off date of 01.10.1986 and had not completed three years of continuous ad hoc service by 13.03.1991 .

The court observed that the confirmation order disclosed neither the authority nor the power under which it was made, giving the impression that it was passed by 'a monarch' rather than a statutory authority under a democratic setup.

"An ad hoc employee must first undergo the formal Regularization Procedure (evaluation by a Selection Committee , screening of records, and checking availability of a substantive vacancy). Once regularized, they are placed on probation, after which they can be 'confirmed'. Directly confirming an ad hoc appointee skips this mandatory legal gateway."

The court further held that the confirmation order was not traceable to any recruitment, service, or regularization rules and was therefore void ab initio . It rejected the plea of estoppel, stating that no estoppel operates against a statute and that an administrative order contrary to codified law is a nullity.

Long Service and Interim Orders No Solace

On the appellants' claim based on long service, the court noted that their continuance was under cover of interim orders, referring to the Constitution Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) which described such employees as being in 'litigious employment'. The court held that mere passage of time or continuance pursuant to interim orders cannot validate an order void from its inception.

The court also rejected the argument of negative equality, stating that the State cannot be compelled to repeat a mistake it has once made.

Final Decision and Implications

The special appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the annulment of the confirmation order. The ruling reinforces that ad hoc appointments cannot be directly confirmed without following the prescribed regularization procedure, and any such confirmation is legally void, conferring no rights. The judgment serves as a reminder that public employment must adhere to the constitutional scheme of equality and statutory rules.