Ad-hoc appointments should not violate the equality of opportunity and must be made following the rules without discriminating against eligible candidates.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The petitioner, K.P. Singh, in this writ petition impugns the order dated 30th March, 2015 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby TA No. 384/2009 filed by him has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner had joined services of the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in 1989. Upon trifurcation, the petitioner is now an employee of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC, for short).

3. The petitioner was given look after charge as an Executive Engineer with effect from 23rd November, 1994 and ad-hoc charge on the same post vide order dated 3rd July, 1995 along with 27 others. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for filling up vacancies in the posts of Executive Engineers for the years 1994-95 and 1996-97 were held by the Union Public Service Commission from 10th December, 1996 to 14th December, 1996. On the basis of the recommendations of the DPC the petitioner was promoted to Executive Engineer (Civil) on regular basis with effect from 9th January, 1997.

4. As per provisional seniority list for Executive Engineers dated 8th October, 1999, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No.13 on the basis of the date of his regular appointment being 9th January, 1997.

5. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 462/2000 before the High Court claiming, inter alia, that his seniority in the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) should be reckoned from the date he was assigned look after charge of the said post, i.e. with effect from 23rd November, 1994 or at least from the date when he was given ad-hoc charge of the said post, i.e. from 3rd July, 1995. Vacancies for the year 1994-95 should have been filled up during the year itself and if for administrative reasons vacancies were not filled up, the period of look after charge/ad-hoc appointment should be counted for the purpose of determining seniority inter se Executive Engineers (Civil). The petitioner, it was stressed, had worked continuously as an ad-hoc Executive Engineer with effect from 3rd July, 1995 till regularization without any interruption. The petitioner was also eligible for promotion as an Executive Engineer after having completed five years as an Assistant Engineer on 5th May, 1994.

6. The writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and registered as T.A No.384/2009. The transfer petition was first disposed of vide order dated 12th January, 2010, but on the said order being challenged in W.P. (C) No. 3363/2012, vide order dated 15th January, 2013, an order of remit was passed for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal.

7. Firoz Ahmed, Devender Singh, Ram Prakash, Jawahar Panjwani, I.M. Arora and P.C Meena are private respondent Nos. 5 to 10 to the present writ petition. Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were impleaded in W.P. (C) 3363/2012 and proceeded against ex-parte.

8. The legal issue which arises for consideration is whether in the absence of rules relating to inter se seniority between promotees in the post of Executive Engineers, the petitioner’s officiation on an ad hoc basis or on assignment of look after charge should be counted. As a legal issue arises for consideration, we would refer to the case law on the subject.

9. In Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Committee and Others Vs. R.K. Kashyap and Others. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 194, the Supreme Court had examined the question of inter se seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers. The question had arisen whether in the absence of any rules or order, the service rendered on ad-hoc appointment as Executive Engineer should be excluded while determining seniority. In other words, whether seniority is to be counted from the date of regular appointment as an Executive Engineer or inter se seniority in the lower cadre would be the proper basis to determine seniority in the higher cadre also? Reference was made to Baleshwar Dass Vs. State of U.P., (1980) 4 SCC 226, A. Janardhana Vs. Union of India, (1983) 3 SCC 610, G.P. Doval Vs. Chief Secretar