Temporary/ad-hoc services rendered prior to regular appointment can be counted for the purpose of granting selection scale under CAS. Non-communication of satisfactory remarks in APAR cannot be used to deny selection scale.

Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.

1. Since all the writ petitions involve common issue, the petitions are decided by the common order.

2. This Court may refer the facts pleaded in SBCWP No. 9649/2014 as lead case.

3. The question involved in all the writ petitions is with regard to counting of temporary/ad-hoc services rendered by the petitioners prior to their regular appointment for the purpose of conferring the benefit of senior and selection scale in Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) introduced by the University Grant Commission.

4. The another relevant question involved in the writ petitions is with regard to considering the non-communication of APAR of the petitioners, same being as satisfactory and its impact on non-communication of satisfactory remark in APAR.

5. The petitioner in SBCWP No. 9649/2014 was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer in chemistry subject on 20.08.1977. The petitioner thereafter was selected by the Public Service Commission in the year 17.08.1982. The petitioner was granted benefit of selection scale after completion of 13 years of service as the petitioner was Ph.D. holder and the State Government accordingly issued an order on the basis of Screening Committee held on 18.12.1995 and the petitioner was conferred benefit of selection scale w.e.f. 17.08.1995.

6. The selection grade granted to the petitioner was revised by the respondents vide order dt. 06.02.2014 and it was granted w.e.f. 27.07.1998.

7. The petitioner has pleaded that by the impugned order dt. 15.07.2014, the petitioner was granted benefit of selection scale from 27.07.1998 and he was not held entitled for selection scale from the year 1995 as the petitioner did not have consistently good service record and did not have requisite APAR for the relevant years.

8. The petitioner has pleaded that on account of orders issued by the State Government dt. 06.02.2014 and dt. 15.07.2014, the State Government also initiated process of recovery from the emoluments paid to the petitioner.

9. Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhawat, Adv. and Mr. Tarun Choudhary, Adv. counsel for the petitioners have submitted that this Court in catena of cases has taken a view that if the satisfactory remarks in APAR are not communicated to the employee concerned, the same cannot be made basis for the purpose of denying grant of selection scale.

10. Learned counsel have further argued that counting of temporary/ad-hoc service prior to regular selection for the purpose of granting benefit under the CAS, has also been consistently held by this Court as well as Apex Court.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on an order passed at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in SBCWP No. 5160/2009 [Vishveshwar Lal Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.] on 08.09.2015. The view taken by the coordinate Bench was upheld by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 199/2016 [The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Vishveshwar Lal Choudhary] decided on 30.03.2016. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Single Bench in SBCWP No. 5160/2009 is reproduced hereunder:-

"In view of the above, it cannot be said that as the entries were not adverse they were not required to be communicated and, consequently, could be used against the petitioner for denying the Selection Scale.

In that view of the fact situation, where the petitioner has not been communicated the entries for the period 1986-1987 to 1992-1993, the refusal of grant of Selection Scale based on such entries cannot be sustained.

It would be noticed that Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the petitioner therein would be treated as fit and the matter cannot be remanded back for communication of the entries and for the petitioner to make representation against those entries on account of passage of two decades, in the present case also two decades have already passed, inasmuch as, the petitioner has retired in the year 1994.

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 05.02.2