Back
1993 Supreme(Gau) 194
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
S.K.Homchaudhuri, J.
Chingakham Bishwarjit Singh; Rajkumar Kabiraj Singh -Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur -Respondent
Civil Rule Nos. 738 and 764 of 1993
Decided On : 12-08-1993
Kh.Binoy Kumar Singh, A.Jagat Chandra Singh, K.Bipin Chandra Sharma
Appointments on an ad-hoc/substitute/officiating basis are temporary and do not entitle regularization. Filling up vacant posts by making appointments on an ad-hoc/substitute basis is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
AD-HOC APPOINTMENT - REGULARISATION - ARTICLE 14, 16 - SERVICE RULES - APPOINTMENT ON AD-HOC BASIS IS TEMPORARY AND DOES NOT ENTITLE REGULARISATION - APPOINTMENT ON AD-HOC BASIS AGAINST REGULAR VACANT POSTS IS NOT WARRANTED - FILLING UP VACANT POSTS BY MAKING APPOINTMENT ON AD-HOC/SUBSTITUTE BASIS IS THE GENERAL RULE AND FILLING UP THE POSTS ACCORDING TO RULES BY SELECTING EITHER FROM THE CANDIDATES SPONSORED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE OR FROM THE CANDIDATES WHO OFFERED THEIR CANDIDATURE IN RESPONSE TO OPEN ADVERTISEMENT, IS THE EXCEPTION - SUCH PRACTICE IS ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were appointed on an ad-hoc basis against regular vacant posts without being selected by the DPC. They sought regularization of their services relying on the Supreme Court's order in All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers' Association vs. State of Manipur and orders passed by the High Court in similar cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that appointments on an ad-hoc/substitute/officiating basis are made in exceptional cases by way of a stop-gap arrangement against fortuitous vacancies purely for a temporary period. Such appointments are not entitled to regularization. The court further held that filling up vacant posts by making appointments on an ad-hoc/substitute basis is the general rule and filling up the posts according to Rules by selecting either from the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange or from the candidates who offered their candidature in response to open advertisement, is the exception. This practice is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether ad-hoc appointments against regular vacant posts are entitled to regularization? 2. Whether filling up vacant posts by making appointments on an ad-hoc/substitute basis is justified?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Director, Institute of Management Development, Ut Smti Pushpa Srivastava, wherein it was held that ad-hoc appointments are purely contractual and do not confer any right to continue in the post. The court also referred to the decision in State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh, wherein the Supreme Court observed that regularizing irregular appointments would only encourage unhealthy practices.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to fill up all vacant posts, both permanent or temporary, occupied by ad-hoc/substitute appointees within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order according to the procedure prescribed by the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners and other incumbents who were appointed against the vacant post on substitute/ad hoc basis should also be given an opportunity to appear before the DPC to be constituted for that purpose.
2. Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 738 of 1993, Shri Ch. Bishwarjit Singh came to be appointed as LDC on substitute basis by the order dated 3rd December, 1991 passed by the Commissioner (Education), Govt. of Manipur for a period of 6 months or till the post would be filled up on regular basis whichever was earlier. After appointment, the petitioner was posted to work in the Govt. Hindi Teachers' Training College. By subsequent orders passed by the respondent No. 2, the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur, the petitioner's appointment on substitute basis was extended from time to time. By order dated October, 1992 (Annexure A/4 to the petition) passed by the respondent No. 2, substitute/ad hoc/officiating appointment of 76 LDC including the petitioner and one Stenographer Grade III, were extended upto the end of October, 1992. By order dated 72nd December, 1992, passed by the respondent No. 2, substitute/ad hoc/officiating appointment of 74 LDC including the petitioner was extended upto the e d of December, 1992. Again by the order dated 22nd February 1995, passed by the respondent No. 2 the term of substitute appointment of the petitioner and 20 others, Grade III Grade and IV employees were extended upto 31st March, 1993.
3. In Civil Rule No. 764 of 1993, the petitioner Shri Rajkumar Kabiraj Singh came to be appointed as Section Officer by order dated 5th February, 1991 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Director of Horticulture and Soil Conservation, Govt. of Manipur on ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months or till the post would be filled up by regular appointment, whichever was earlier. By subsequent order dated 31st August, 1991 respondent No. 2 extended the appointment of the petitioner for a further period of 6 months. Thereafter by order dated 20th October, 1992 passed by the respondent No. 2, the term of ad hoc/officiating/substitute appointment of the 45 incumbent including the petitioner were extended for the period shown against their names by way of giving 2 days gap period between the term of initial ad hoc appointment and the period to be extended, under the conditions that no further extension would be entertained thereafter. Again by order dated 2nd February, 1993 passed by the respondent No. 2 the terra of ad hoc appointment of 39 number of Grade III and Grade IV staff, including the petitioner were extended upto 31 3.93. No further extension appears to have been made thereafter.
4. Prayer in both the writ petitions is for issue of writ or direction commanding the respondents to regularise the appointments of the writ petitioners. The petitioners have placed reliance on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers' Association vs. State of Manipur, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2088. The petitioners hive als3 placed reliance on order dated 22.11.90 passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 646 of 1990 as well as the judgment and order dated 16.9.91 parsed in Civil Rule No. 200 of 1991 & others, falling in line with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers Association (supra).
5. I have heard Mr. K. Bipinchandra Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 738 of 1^93, Mr, Kh. Binoykumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 764 of 1993 and learned Advocate General. Manipur assisted by Mr, A. Jagatchandra Singh, learned Additional Govt. Advocate.
6. Admittedly both the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis without being selected by the DPC and as such the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services is not well founded. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, Ut Smti Pushpa Srivastava, reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070 amongst other held :
"Where the appointment is purel
