1. Both these petitions involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, can be decided by a common judgment because what arises for determination is, whether the period of adhoc appointment counts for seniority where under the Recruitment Rules appointment to the post can be made only on the basis of selection made by the Public Service Commission after holding competitive examination.

2. The facts emerging from the pleadings are that both the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forest on 4.1.1978 by respondent No:2 on the recommendation of Public Service Commission. It is also not disputed that respondent No: 4 file SWP No: 965/1990 and No:8 in SWP No: 321/1991) did not figure in the select list published by the Public Service Commission on 11.03.1978. It is thus clear that the 4th respondent was not regularly appointed on the post at the time the petitioners were appointed. He was thus junior to them. It appears that his service was regularised much after March, 1978. However, by order dated 10-10.1990, his adhoc appointment from 10.09.1977 to 31.07.1978 was regularised for purposes of seniority. This order reads as under:-

"The adhoc appointment of Shri Aijaz Ahmed Bhat, DFO Bandipur as ACF, from 10.09.1977 to 31.07.1978 is hereby regularised for purposes of his seniority. The officer shall not, however, be paid any arrears that may accrue to him on account of regularisation of adhoc appointment."

3. The petitioners challenged the order on the ground that regularisation of the period of adhoc appointment is not only contrary against law, but also against the Principles of natural justice. This order even otherwise was against the earlier decision of the Department conveyed to respondent No: 4 vide letter No: Fst/Est-90/69-II dated 2.1.1084 issued by the 2nd respondent, which is extracted below:-

€œYour representation against tentative seniority list in respect of position given to Pir Bashir Ahmad and officers shown at Serial No. 35,37,39,40,41 and 42 and your claim for placing at serial No: 28 in seniority list, having been considered under rules, has been found without force and hence rejected.

As regards your second claim against the seniority position of Shri Mohd. Shafi Khan shown in the tentative seniority list, it is to inform you that the period of adhoc service of Shri Mohd. Shafiq Khan will not be counted under rules, for purposes of determining his seniority,Your claim for treating the adhoc period towards seniority is not also sustainable under rules."

So the relief prayed by the petitioners is that the order dated 10.10.1990 be quashed and their seniority restored.

4. In the counter filed on behalf of the official respondents, the impugned order is justified on the ground that after considering his representation, the Government regularised the period of his adhoc appointment for the purpose of seniority.

5. Mr. Bhardwaj, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the order of reguiarisation is without jurisdiction because when the appointments to the post under the rules have to be made by direct recruitment on the basis of result of competitive examination, seniority can be determined only under Rule 24 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. As per the rule, merit secured by the candidates in the competitive examination determines his seniority and not the date of appointment. Since the petitioners were appointment in January, 1978 on the basis of selection made by the Public Service Commission, regularisation of adhoc service of a person, who was not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, is against the law.

6. Mr. Kapoor, learned Additional Advocate General, however, submitted that the Government have inherent powers to relax the rules and, therefore, order of regularisation does not suffer from any infirmity.

7. The only question involved for consideration is whether the Government has the powers to regularise adhoc appointment so as t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document