1995 Supreme(SC) 1380

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Dr. Gagan Inder Kaur and others - Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory of Chandigarh and others - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 368 of 1987
Decided On : 17-10-1995

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 32- Claim of compensation – Retired from Service - Appointment has been described - Under erroneous belief that consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was necessary under the Rules for the purpose of regular appointment on the post of Lecturer, the orders Of appointment contained the condition that the appointment was made on ad hoc basis. This practice had been continuing since 1977. By notification dated September 14, 1990 published in Chandigarh Administrative Gazette Chandigarh Educational Service Government Arts and Science Colleges Rules 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 1990 Rules) were published. Under sub-rule (ii) of Rules 1 199d Rules came into force with immediate effect but under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 1 Class 11 status (Group B) was deemed to have been conferred on lecturers with effect Rules apply to posts specified in columns (1) and (2) of the Schedule to the Rules and such other post as may be included in the Schedule from time to time. The post of Lecturer in various subjects mentioned in the Schedule fall within the ambit of the 1990 rules - As regards the method of recruitment, age limit and other qualifications Rule 4 prescribes that the same shall be as specified in columns (5) to (14) of the Schedule to the rules – Held, In support of this submission has also pointed out that the petitioners have been given salary, increments, housing allowance, housing facilities, medical leave, maternity leave, leave travel concession, ex-India leave, long leave, earned leave and other perquisites/facilities of service while they have been working as Lecturers ever since their appointment. It has also been submitted that many of the Lecturers, who have been described as Lecturers appointed on ad hoc basis, have been discharging the duties of Head of Department in their respective departments of the colleges in which they re (sic) working and are performing various duties of Registrar (Examination) and others, which posts are meant to be filled by Lecturers with at least experience - These facts are set out in the additional affidavit of filed on behalf of the petitioners and have not been by the respondents - In view of the facts mentioned above it appears that the appointment of the petitioners and other Lecturers in the Union Territory of Chandigarh who were appointed on ad hoc basis during the period 1977 till the publication of the 1990 rules, though described as an ad hoc appointment, is really an appointment on regular basis made in accordance with the procedure that was required to be followed for making a regular appointment under the Punjab Rules of which were in force at that time. The said appointments have been described as being ad hoc in nature on the erroneous impression that consultation with the UPSC was necessary after 1977 for making regular appointment on the post, Since the Punjab Rules of 1937 had continued in force, consultation with UPSC was not required for the post of Lecturer which continued to be a Class II post till the publication of the 1990 Rules on - It is no doubt true that as a result of the retrospective effect given by Rule 1Rules Class II status (Group B) has been conferred on Lecturers with effect and as a result the post of Lecturer has to be treated as Class II post with effect from April 1, 1975 and the said post has cone under the purview of the UPSC by virtue of UPSC Regulations, 1958 which only exclude Class III and IV posts from the purview of the UPSC. the said retrospective amendment cannot, in our opinion, have the effect of depriving the petitioners of their right of having been substantively appointed on the post of Lecturer prior to the coming into force of the 1990 Rules on February 21, 1991. Since we are of the opinion that the appointment of the petitioners on the post of lecturer was made under the Punjab Rules of 1937, which were in force at that time, and the said appointment, though described as being ad hoc in nature was a regular appointment, the petitioners and other Lecturers similarly situate would not be affected by the retrospective effect given by Rules, 1 (iii) of the 1990 Rules so as to require the appointment of the petitioners to be in consultation with the UPSC – Petition allowed