Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 1434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, SUDHIR SINGH, JJ.
Sanjiv Kumar, S/o Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13623 of 2014
Decided On : 20-04-2015
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mr. D.K. Jha, Adv., Mr. S.C. Verma, Adv., Mr. Navendu Kumar, Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Adv. A.C. to AAG
Regularization of ad hoc appointments is not permissible, and proper procedure must be followed for appointments.
Headnote:
Appointment Procedure - Public Interest Litigation - The court directed that the appointments of respondents 6 to 13 be treated as purely ad hoc and set aside any regularization of their services. The Municipality was directed to follow proper procedure for future appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation alleging that respondents 6 to 13 were appointed in various posts contrary to the prescribed procedure, based on their relation or association with the Ward Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the appointments were made on an ad hoc basis, the Municipality had regularized the services of respondents 6 to 13, which was not permissible. The court directed that the appointments be treated as purely ad hoc and set aside any regularization.
Issues: The main issue was the appointment procedure followed by the Municipality, and whether the appointments of respondents 6 to 13 were regularized in violation of the prescribed procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while ad hoc appointments were permissible, any regularization of such appointments was not allowed. It directed the Municipality to follow proper procedure for future appointments.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by directing that the appointments of respondents 6 to 13 be treated as purely ad hoc, set aside any regularization, and instructed the Municipality to follow proper procedure for future appointments.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
This writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation is filed complaining that the respondents 6 to 13 herein are appointed in various posts contrary to the prescribed procedure. It is submitted that the only basis for appointing them was that either they were related or the followers of the Ward Commissioner. We issued notice to respondents 6 to 13 and learned counsel on their behalf also enter appearance. Their contention is that their appointments were purely on ad hoc basis on par with other employees and the writ petition is wholly motivated. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that though the induction was on ad hoc basis, the Municipality has regularized the service of respondents 6 to 13.
2. Heard Shri Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Chitranjan Sinha, Shri D.K. Jha, Shri S.C. Verma, Shri Navendu Kumar and Shri Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel for the State.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Municipality has made appointments to various posts without following the procedure, such as issuing advertisement or otherwise inviting applications from eligible candidates.
4. We would have certainly insisted on the procedure to be followed, but for the fact that the appointments are said to be purely ad hoc and on daily wage. No exception can be taken to such engagements. However, in the name of engaging persons on daily wage the Municipality cannot confer any benefit on them. In case any order was passed regularizing the service of those, they need to be set aside.
5. The writ petition is disposed of directing that:
(A) The appointment or engagement of respondents 6 to 13 shall be treated as purely on ad hoc basis, to be in force till 1.6.2015;
(B) In case the services of respondents 6 to 13 have been regularized through any individual or common order, the same shall stand set aside;
(C) In case the Municipality intends to take steps to fill such vacancies either on daily wage or temporary basis, it shall invite applications from eligible persons and make appointments in accordance with law.
Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
