Back
1994 Supreme(Del) 123
High Court Of Delhi
RAM MURTI SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
DELHI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UNDERTAKING - Respondent
Civil 4314 of 1993
Decided On : 02/22/1994
A.M.SANGHVI, AMIT BANSAL, B.C.Pandey, G.D.GUPTA, JAYANT NATH, MONICA PURI
An ad hoc or tortuitous appointment on a temporary or stop-gap basis cannot be taken into account for the purpose of seniority even if the appointee was qualified to hold post on regular basis; such temporary tenure hardly counts for seniority in any system of service jurisprudence.
Headnote:
SENIORITIY - AD HOC SERVICE - COUNTING - DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING (D. M. C.) (SENIORITY) REGULATIONS, 1968 - SECTION 96 OF THE DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 - Petitioners were initially appointed as Inspectors/operators and later promoted as Superintendents (Technical) and Controller. The posts of Superintendent (Technical) and Controller are feeder posts for promotion to the higher post of Assistant Engineer (E/m). The petitioners were firstly promoted as Assistant Engineers on an ad hoc basis on different dates and it is contended by them that the said promotions had in fact all the ingredients of regular promotion, in as much as the promotions were made against the regular vacancies falling in promotion quota and through a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (for short D.P.C.) in respect of petitioners 1 to 4 wherein all the eligible candidates were considered and in the case of petitioner No. 5. the promotion was also made on an ad hoc basis in 1981 and was extended from time to time. The promotion was made against regular vacancies falling in promotion quota and through a regularly constituted D.P.C. although petitioner No. 5 was adjusted subsequently in the quota of Controllers in a regular vacancy. The ad hoc promotions of the petitioners took place initially for a period of six months or till further orders and the relative details may be reproduced as follows: HELD, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Engineers according to Regulations and their seniority has to be counted from the date of such appointment. The ad hoc appointment of the petitioners had all the characteristics of-regular promotions, The initial promotion on an ad hoc basis was made by following the procedure as laid down by the 1980 Regulations. The period of ad hoc service will be counted towards seniority in view of the fact that the vacancies to which the petitioners were appointed, were substantive vacancies and the petitioners were eligible to be promoted. The formalisation of their appointments came in the year 1987 and that must relate back to the period of their ad hoc promotion. The petitioners continued to work uninterrupted till their promotions were regularised in 1987 by the Union Public Service Commission and there has been no break in their service. The ad hoc promotions of petitioners 1 to 4 were made within the quota and after considering the claims of all the eligible candidates and there has been continuous officiation by all the petitioners. Petitioner no. 5 continued in the post un-interruptedly till regularisation of his service in his own quota in accordance with the regulations. The ad hoc service cannot, therefore, be discarded. The Departmental Promotion Committee which made the promotions was duly constituted in accordance with the 1980 Regulations and it cannot be said such selections was, in any manner, against the provisions of law.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were initially appointed as Inspectors/operators and later promoted as Superintendents (Technical) and Controller. The posts of Superintendent (Technical) and Controller are feeder posts for promotion to the higher post of Assistant Engineer (E/m). The petitioners were firstly promoted as Assistant Engineers on an ad hoc basis on different dates and it is contended by them that the said promotions had in fact all the ingredients of regular promotion, in as much as the promotions were made against the regular vacancies falling in promotion quota and through a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (for short D.P.C.) in respect of petitioners 1 to 4 wherein all the eligible candidates were considered and in the case of petitioner No. 5. the promotion was also made on an ad hoc basis in 1981 and was extended from time to time. The promotion was made against regular vacancies falling in promotion quota and through a regularly constituted D.P.C. although petitioner No. 5 was adjusted subsequently in the quota of Controllers in a regular vacancy. The ad hoc promotions of the petitioners took place initially for a period of six months or till further orders and the relative details may be reproduced as follows:
Finding of the Court:
The petitioners were promoted as Assistant Engineers according to Regulations and their seniority has to be counted from the date of such appointment. The ad hoc appointment of the petitioners had all the characteristics of-regular promotions, The initial promotion on an ad hoc basis was made by following the procedure as laid down by the 1980 Regulations. The period of ad hoc service will be counted towards seniority in view of the fact that the vacancies to which the petitioners were appointed, were substantive vacancies and the petitioners were eligible to be promoted. The formalisation of their appointments came in the year 1987 and that must relate back to the period of their ad hoc promotion. The petitioners continued to work uninterrupted till their promotions were regularised in 1987 by the Union Public Service Commission and there has been no break in their service. The ad hoc promotions of petitioners 1 to 4 were made within the quota and after considering the claims of all the eligible candidates and there has been continuous officiation by all the petitioners. Petitioner no. 5 continued in the post un-interruptedly till regularisation of his service in his own quota in accordance with the regulations. The ad hoc service cannot, therefore, be discarded. The Departmental Promotion Committee which made the promotions was duly constituted in accordance with the 1980 Regulations and it cannot be said such selections was, in any manner, against the provisions of law.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of their ad hoc service for determination of their seniority, as they were initially promoted in 1982-1983 by valid selection process through a regular D.P.C., which was duly constituted under the statutory Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of the Direct Recruitment Class 11 Engineering Officers Association and others (supra), is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of their un-interrupted ad hoc service as there was no violation of the Regulations. Propositions (A) and (B) are relevant in this regard.
Final Decision: The writ petition, as a consequence, is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of their ad hoc service, which they have rendered as Assistant Engineers from the respective dates of their appointment. The subsequent approval by U.P.S.C. in the. year 1987 will relate back to the dates of initial appointments for the purpose of reckoning seniority. Respondent no. 1 shall re-frame the seniority list on this basis to give proper placement to the petitioners. There will be no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE present writ petition raises the question of counting the ad hoc service of the petitioners from the date of such appointments for purposes of determining the seniority. The other questions of law, which have also been raised, relate to the interpretation of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (D. M. C.) (Seniority) Regulations, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "1968 Regulations"), with regard to quota for promotees and direct recruits in the service and the operation of rotational rule. These questions have already been dealt with vide my separate judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 3153/92 entitled Shri P. K. Thappar and others v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and othters, (1) and it will not be necessary for me to re-state the same hi the present judgment. The main contention in that writ petition was that sinve the quota had collapsed and broken down, seniority could not be determined on the basis of quota and rota and the same became liable to be determined on the basis of continuous length of service.
( 2 ) THE petitioners were initially anointed as Inspectors/operators. Petitioners I to 4 were appointed as Inspectors and petitioner No. 5, was appointed as Operator. Later on, the petitioneps 1 to 4 were promoted as Superintendents (Technical) and petitioner No. 5 was promoted as Assistant Controller and thereafter as Controller. The posts of Superintendent (Technical) and Controller are feeder posts for promotion to the higher post of Assistant Engineer (E/m ). The petitioners were firstly promoted as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis on different dates and it is contended by them that the said promotions had in fact all the ingredients of regular promotion, in as much as the promotions were made against the regular vacancies falling in promotion quota and through a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (for short D. P. C.) in respect of petitioners I to 4 wherein all the eligible candidates were considered and in the case of petitioner No. 5. the promotion was also made on ad hoc basis in 1981 and was extended from time to time. The promotion was made against regular vacancies falling in promotion quota and through a regularly constituted D. P. C. although petitioner No. 5 was adjusted subsequently in the quota of Controllers in a regular vacancy. The ad hoc promotions of the petitioners took place initially for a period of six months or till further orders and the relative details may be reproduced as follows : Sl. Name Date of order Date of - No. appointment as Adhoc Asstt. Engr. 1. Ram Murti Sharma, Petitioner No. 1 28-6-1982 30-6-1982 2. Lal Chand Wadhwa. Petitioner No. 2 17-8-1983 22-8-1983 3. Subhash Chander, Petitioner no. 3 -do- 22-8-1983 4. H. C. Verma, Petitioner no. 4 -do- 22-8-1983 5. S. K. Jain, Petitioner no. 5 12-3-1981 17-3-1981
( 3 ) THE services of the petitioners were regularised on the recommendations of the D. P. C. in the meeting held on 2/3rd June, 1987. The said meeting of the Committee was presided over by a member of the Union Public Service Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that although the petitioners were promoted on ad hoc basis, the promotions had all the characteristics of regular selection as they were duly selected by a properly constituted D. P. C. and in accordance with statutory Regulations. The appointments were made within their quota and against regular vacancies and the period of ad hoc service was continuous and uninterrupted. They are, accordingly, entitled to be regularised from the dates of their appointment, as indicated above. He has further argued that it was not necessary to consult U. P. S. C. or to seek its approval at the time, when initial selection on ad hoc basis was made. The petitioners are governed by the provisions of Recruitment Regulations for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical), 1980. The relevant provisions may be reproduced as under : "1. Name of Post Assistant Eng
