SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. K. SINGH
Vs.
BOOL CHAND CHABLANI
Decided on April 1, 1998
SENIORITIY - ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR (PWD) GROUP A AND GROUP B POSTS RECRUITMENT RULES, 1980 - RULE 6 - Ad hoc appointment dehors the Rules cannot be taken into account for determining seniority in the cadre. Appointment letter issued is merely a clerical act and the order of the Lt. Governor should be held to be an order in exercise of the power of relaxation under Section 6 of the Rules.
Fact of the Case:
Respondents 3 to 7 were promoted on an ad hoc basis to the post of Assistant Engineer. A Departmental Promotion Committee recommended their regular promotion, but it was subject to the dereservation of reserved posts. The Lt. Governor dereserved the posts and directed that they be filled by promotion from the feeder cadre. The respondents were subsequently promoted with effect from 18/10/1984. The appellant, who was appointed on 17/9/1984, was shown senior to the respondents in the seniority list. The respondents challenged this in the tribunal, which held that their ad hoc period should be reckoned for determining their seniority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the ad hoc appointment of the respondents was not in accordance with the Rules and, therefore, could not be taken into account for determining their seniority. The court also held that the order of the Lt. Governor dereserving the posts was not an order of regularisation and, therefore, the respondents could not be deemed to have been in regular appointment with effect from the date of dereservation.
Issues: Whether the ad hoc service rendered by the respondents prior to their regularisation can be taken into account for determining their seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that ad hoc appointments made dehors the Rules cannot be taken into account for determining seniority in the cadre. The court also held that an order of dereservation of posts is not an order of regularisation and, therefore, the respondents could not be deemed to have been in regular appointment with effect from the date of dereservation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the tribunal.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the central Administrative tribunal, Calcutta bench dated 23/9/1993, passed in OA No. 8 of 1992 and OA No. 9 of 1992. Special leave was rejected as against OA No. 8 of 1992, but had been granted as against order in OA No. 9 of 1992. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the service rendered by Respondents 3 to 9 on ad hoc basis prior to their regularisation by letter dated 25/10/1984 can at all be taken into account for determining their seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer. It is not disputed that in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution, the President has framed a set of Rulescalled "andaman and Nicobar (PWD) Group A and Group B Posts Recruitment Rules, 1980" (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). Respondents 3 to 7 had been promoted on ad hoc basis to continue as Assistant Engineer. A Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of regular promotion on 30/8/1982, but the said Committee found that unless and until the reserved posts are dereserved, no regular promotion can be given to the said respondents. The Departmental Promotion Committee, however, recommended that after getting the reserved posts dereserved, the ad hoc promotion of three persons, which includes Respondents 3 and 4,could be regularised from the date of sanction of dereservation. The then Chief Commissioner, who was the appointing authority, also approved the aforesaid recommendation, but no order of regularisation or by way of fresh appointment had been issued in favour of Respondents 3 and 4. The Lt. governor of Andaman and Nicobar Administration passed an order on 3/9/1984 dereserving the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) at Roster Points 1, 4, 8, 14, 17 and 22 and directed filling up of the said post by general candidates by promotion from the feeder cadre of Junior Engineer with immediate effect. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order, the government did not issue any order in favour of Respondents 3 and 4. A fresh Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of promotion on 18/10/1984 and recommended the case of Respondents 3 to 7 for being promoted. Thereafter, the Administration by its order dated 25/10/1984 promoted Respondents 3 to 7 with effect from 18/10/1984 to the post of Assistant Engineer. The appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer on 17/9/1984. In the draft seniority list published in 1987, the promotee respondents were shown junior to the appellant. The same position also emerged in the final seniority list that was published in 1989. Even on 22/1/1991, when the Department sought for some clarifications, that was also rejected. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid seniority list, the promotee respondents filed the application before the tribunal and the tribunal by the impugned judgment having come to the conclusion that with the order of dereservation the promotees should be deemed to have been regularised with effect from their initial appointment on ad hoc basis, allowed the original application. Hence the present appeal.
( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that since the promotion of Respondents 3 to 7 on ad hoc basis was not in accordance with-the Rules and dehors the Rules and they were promoted on regular basis only with effect from 18/10/1984, the tribunal was wholly in error in directing that the ad hoc period shall be reckoned for the purpose of determining the seniority of Respondents 3 to 7. We find sufficient force in the aforesaid contention. Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, is also not in a position to support the aforesaid contention of the tribunal. It is well settled that when ad hoc appointment is made dehors the Rules, the said appointment would not enure to the benefit of the appointee for the purpose of determining the seniority in the cadre. Mr Dwivedi, however, contended that, since Respondents 3 and 4 were selected by the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.