This Writ petition has been filed praying for directing the respondents for retrospective regularization of the services of the petitioners w.e.f. the dates of their initial ad hoc appointments.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Brojendro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.Asok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Mr. Suresh Sarangthem, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Materials before the Court are perused. The petitioners were appointed as Section Officers in the Engineering Department on ad hoc basis during the year, 1979-80 under separate appointment orders issued by the Director of Education (S),Govt. of Manipur and their terms of ad hoc appointments were extended from time to time upto the end of February,1992 vide order dated 24.12.81(Annexure 5 to the writ petition). By an order dated 15.2.1987 issued by the Director of Education(S),Govt. of Manipur(Annexure-A/6 to the writ petition), the petitioners were appointed as Section Officers on the recommendation of the DPC w.e.f. the dates of joining their duties until further orders. Thereafter, by an order No.15/5/81-W dated 30.4.82 issued by the Govt.of Manipur, the Engineering Cell Education was merged with Public Works Department, Manipur(Annexure-7 to the writ petition).

4. According to the petitioners, at the time when they were appointed on ad hoc basis, they were all qualified for appointment as Section Officers Grade-I on regular basis according to rules and they had been serving as Section officers since the dates of their respective initial ad hoc appointment without any break till they were regularly appointed in the 1982 and as such their case falls under the proposition (B) made by the Apex Court in direct recruits Class-II Engineering Officers' Association & Ors. v. State of Maharastra AIR 1990 SC 1607. The learned counsel for the petitioners also draws my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Keshav Deo and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors AIR 1999 SC 44.

5. In the above referred direct recruits case, the Supreme Court held in proposition (A) that once an incumbent is appointed to a post, according to rules, his seniority is to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary to the above proposition provides that when initial appointment is only on ad hoc and not according to rules and made as stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering seniority. Whereas in proposition (B) it was held that if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedures laid down by the rules, but the appointee remains continuously in the post uninterruptedly till regularization of his service in accordance with rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.

6. Now, the point to be determined is which of the two propositions- either corollary of the proposition (A) or the proposition (B) of the said direct recruits case will be applicable in the present case.

7. It is well settled principles of law that no appointment can be made in deviation of or departure from procedures laid down in the relevant Recruitment Rules. The Supreme Court in R.N.Nanjundappa -v- T.Thimmiah (1972)I SCC 409 at para 26 held, “ if the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularized. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority, but there has been some non- compliance with the procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such proposition would be to introduce new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules.” Similarly is the view of the Supreme Court in B.N. Nagarajan -V- State of Karnataka and Ors, (1979)4 SCC 5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document