SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 1695

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. PATTANAIK, B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Union of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
Satish Chandra Mathur – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 12801 of 1996
Decided On : 01-05-2001

Appointment must be in accordance with the prescribed procedure for the period of service to be counted for seniority purposes.

Headnote:

Seniority - Programme Executive - The court held that the period of service rendered by the respondent from 28-10-1976 till 1-1-1979 could not be counted for the purposes of his seniority in the cadre of Programme Executive, as the appointment was dehors the statutory Rules and not in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent's services as an ad hoc Programme Executive from 28-10-1976 till 1-1-1979 were in question for reckoning his seniority in the cadre of Programme Executive.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the period of service from 28-10-1976 till 1-1-1979 could not be counted for seniority purposes, as the appointment was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Issues: The issue was whether the period of ad hoc service could be counted for seniority in the cadre of Programme Executive.

Ratio Decidendi: The appointment to the cadre was dehors the statutory Rules and not in accordance with the prescribed procedure, therefore the period of service could not be counted for seniority purposes.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Tribunal and held that the respondent's seniority in the cadre of Programme Executive could be counted from 1-1-1979 as Programme Executive. The appeal was allowed.

ORDER :

1. The Union of India is in appeal against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. The question for consideration is whether the services rendered by the respondent as an ad hoc Programme Executive from 28-10-1976 till 1-1-1979, on which date his services stood regularised as a Programme Executive, can at all be counted for reckoning his seniority in the cadre of Programme Executive. The recruitment to the post of Programme Executive is governed by a set of rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called the All India Radio (Group B Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1962. The said Rules have been amended from time to time. Programme Executive being a Group B post, the prescribed procedure for recruitment to the said post is as contained in Rule 4-A. It necessarily stipulates constitution of a Screening Committee with the Chairman or Member, Union Public Service Commission as a member of the Committee, and then after consideration/adjudging suitability, approval of the list by the Union Public Service Commission, whereafter appointment could be made by the Government. The respondent, however, without going through the process of screening and selection, as stated above, was appointed by the Director General, All India Radio by letter dated 25-9-1976, and the appointment letter unequivocally indicates that the appointment to the post of Programme Executive is on ad hoc basis and it further adds a clause to the appointment letter, which reads as under:

    “The appointments of the Transmission Executives mentioned above as Programme Executive will be on ad hoc basis and it will not confer on them any right or privilege for continued or regular appointment in that grade.”

2. When the seniority list of the Programme Executive was drawn from time to time in 1977, in 1980 in 1985 and finally in 1989, the Union Government had not taken the aforesaid ad hoc period for the purposes of the seniority of the respondent. The respondent, however, had been filing objection to the said seniority list, and finally approached the Administrative Tribunal. When the seniority list was drawn in 1989, he was shown at Serial No. 107 excluding the ad hoc period from consideration. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment relying upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of one M.P. Verma came to hold that since the respondent has been continuously holding the post of Programme Executive from October 1976 till 1-1-1979, the date on which his services stood regularised, it would be inequitable not to count that period for the purposes of the seniority merely because of mentioning “ad hoc” in the letter of appointment. In effect, the Tribunal follows the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Verma case.

3. Mr. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union Government contended that in the teeth of the provisions of the statutory Recruitment Rules prescribing the procedure for filling up the post of Programme Executive, and that procedure not having been followed, and instead the respondent having been appointed by the Director General on 28-10-1976 and the terms and conditions of the appointment having clearly stipulated that the period will not be counted either for regular recruitment or for any purpose, the Tribunal committed error in reckoning that period for the purposes of determining the seniority of the respondent in the cadre of Programme Executive. Mr. Arvind Kumar appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that it is no doubt true that the prescribed procedure had not been followed, but since at that point of time there had been no Screening Committee, and the respondent possesses the prescribed qualifications, and was appointed by the competent authority, and had been allowed to continue in the post till regularisation on 1-1-1979, the principle enunciated by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in Direct Recruitment case Direct Recruit Class-II Engg. Officers' As

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top