1. Ad hoc appointment — High Court interim order allowing continuance until regular selection — Subsequent order treating such continuance as regular service. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 612
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., M. K. Mukherjee, J.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
Versus
RAJ KARAN SINGH, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. ... of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21755 of 1995),
decided on March 18, 1996.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Ad hoc appointment - Regularization - Continuance in service under interim orders of the Court - Whether such continuance confers a right to be treated as on regular service - Continuance under interim orders is merely an interim arrangement pending decision by the Court and cannot disturb the position in law or equities as on the date of the petition - Such continuance does not confer any right for continuance nor does it enhance the case for regularization. (Para 2)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of relief - Court cannot grant relief that goes beyond the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An ad hoc employee was permitted by a court order to continue in service until a regularly-selected candidate became available. Subsequently, another bench of the same court directed that since the employee had been retained beyond one year, he should be treated as being on regular service and his services could not be terminated without a formal order.
Findings of Court:
The order treating the employee as on regular service was erroneous as it exceeded the relief claimed in the original petition and ignored the principle that interim court orders do not create permanent rights.
Issues: Whether the continuance of an ad hoc employee under an interim court order entitles them to be treated as a regular employee.
Ratio Decidendi: Continuance on a post under the interim orders of a court is an interim arrangement and does not confer any right to regularization or permanent continuance, nor does it alter the legal position existing at the time of the petition.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether continuance in ad hoc service under an interim court order entitles the employee to be treated as being on regular service. (Para 2 )
3. Continuance under interim court orders is a temporary arrangement that does not confer a right to permanent tenure or enhance a claim for regularization. (Para 2 )
4. Continuance in service pursuant to an interim court order does not create a right to regularization or disturb the legal position existing at the time of petition. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order treating ad hoc service as regular service set aside — Original interim order allowing continuance until regular selection restored and made absolute. (Para 3 )
6. Does continuance in a post under an interim court order confer a right to regularization?
No. Continuance under interim orders of the Court does not confer any right for continuance nor does it enhance a person's case for regularization, as it is only an interim arrangement pending the court's decision. (Para 2 )
7. Can a court grant relief beyond the specific prayer made in a writ petition?
No. The court held that an order treating a respondent as being on regular service went beyond the original prayer, which was merely to continue until regular selection was made. (Para 2 )
8. Does the duration of an ad hoc appointment under a court order automatically convert it into regular service?
No. Mere retention in service beyond a certain period under an interim court order does not automatically entitle the employee to be treated as being on regular service. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. Heard counsel on both sides. It appears that a Division Bench of the High Court comprising V. N. Khare and S. K. Mookerji, JJ. had by their order dated 27-4-1989 directed that the ad hoc appointment of the respondent may continue till a regularly-selected candidate becomes available for appointment or till his services are terminated in accordance with law or the post is abolished. Under the said interim order, the respondent is continuing to function as an Assistant Lecturer (Civil Engineering) on ad hoc basis. By the impugned order dated 26-10-1994, another Division Bench of the High Court has directed that since the respondent was retained in service beyond one year, he should be treated as on "regular service" and his services cannot be terminated without issuing any formal order. Thus the respondent was directed to be treated on regular service by the impugned order merely because by the earlier order of 27-4-1989, he was permitted to continue till a regularly-selected candidate was available. The original prayer of the respondent was for the issuance of a writ to allow him to continue till regular selection through the UPSC is made. The impugned order of 26-10-1994, therefore, goes beyond the relief claimed by the respondent in the writ petition itself. Besides, merely because a person continues under the interim orders of the Court such continuance on the post cannot and, in this case, does not confer on him any right for continuance, it does not enhance his case for regularisation. It is only an interim arrangement pending decision by the Court and cannot disturb the position in law or equities, as on the date of the petition.
3. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 26-10-1994 of the Division Bench of the High Court, restore the order of 27-4-1989 and make it absolute. The writ petition will stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs throughout.
