SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 15791

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
URMITA DATTA (SEN), Judicial Member, SUMEET JERATH, Administrative Member
Mou Mazumdar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 040/0001/2022 (OA No. 040/2021/2021)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Chanda
For the Respondents: R. Hazarika, Addl. CGSC

Ad hoc service against substantive vacancy via employment exchange selection, continued uninterruptedly till regularization, deemed regular from initial appointment with consequential benefits including promotion eligibility.

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal (Group ’B’ and ’C’ Miscellaneous posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 - Recruitment to Lower Division Clerk post - 90% by direct recruitment, 5% from Group ’D’ staff via qualifying exam, 5% on seniority-cum-fitness from Group ’D’ - Power to relax provisions vested in Chairman - Applicant appointed on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy through employment exchange sponsorship, selection process including written test, type test and viva-voce, continued uninterruptedly till regularization - Ad hoc service deemed regularized from initial appointment date with all consequential benefits including residency period for promotion/financial upgradation - Impugned refusal to count ad hoc service for eligibility in departmental competitive exam set aside. (Paras 2, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7)

(B) Service Jurisprudence - Ad hoc/temporary appointment preceded by permissible selection process against substantive vacancy not treated as mere stop-gap - Period of continuous officiating service counted for regularization and seniority even if initial appointment not strictly per rules - Coverage under principle that uninterrupted service till regularization entitles counting of officiating period. (Paras 6.2, quoting Para 44

(B))

Facts of the case:
Applicant appointed as Lower Division Clerk on ad hoc basis from 04.01.2011 after selection through employment exchange against substantive vacancies where direct recruits did not join; service extended periodically with Chairman's approval; regularized w.e.f. 13.08.2013 after DPC recommendation; refused permission to appear in departmental competitive exam for Upper Division Clerk citing insufficient regular service as on crucial date, leading to impugned letter dated 17.11.2021.

Findings of Court:
Ad hoc service from 04.01.2011 to 12.08.2013 deemed regularized; respondents directed to grant all consequential benefits including counting of residency period for promotion/financial upgradation; interim permission to appear in exam continued subject to outcome.

Issues: Whether ad hoc service against substantive vacancy through proper selection process qualifies for deemed regularization from initial date; entitlement to count such service for eligibility in departmental promotional exam requiring 5 years regular service.

Ratio Decidendi: Appointment through employment exchange and selection process against substantive vacancy, followed by uninterrupted continuation till formal regularization, deems ad hoc service as regular from initial date per binding precedents; distinguishes from pure stop-gap arrangements; aligns with principle that continuous officiating service counts despite initial procedural variance.

Result: Application allowed; impugned letter quashed; directions issued for deemed regularization and benefits.

Table of Content
1. prayer for regularization of ad hoc service. (Para 1)
2. ad hoc ldc appointment against substantive vacancy. (Para 2)
3. applicant's claim via direct recruit judgment. (Para 3 , 4)
4. ad hoc service counts if via proper selection. (Para 5 , 6)
5. deemed regularization of ad hoc service ordered. (Para 7)
6. application disposed with directions. (Para 8)

ORDER

PER: URMITA DATTA (SEN), MEMBER (J):

This application has been preferred to seek the following relief:

“8.1. Impugned letter dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure A1) be set aside and quashed.

8.2. The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to declare that the so called ad hoc service of the applicant in the post of LDC w.e.f. 04.01.2011 to 12.08.2013 is entitled to be regularised/deemed regularised with all consequential benefits, including counting of residency period for promotion/financial upgradation.

8.3. The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to regularise/deemed regularise the so called ad hoc service of the applicant in the post of LDC w.e.f. 04.01.2011 to 12.08.2013 with all consequential benefits, including counting of residency period for promotion/financial upgradation.

8.4. The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the applicant to participate in the LDCE, 2017 for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk notified by Notice dated 18.10.2021(Annexure A19), with compliance of all the concomitant formalities on the part of the respondents for the same.

8.5. Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.”

2. As per the provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group ’B’ and ’C’ Miscellaneous posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 for recruitment to Group ’B’ and ’C’ posts in the Central Administrative Tribunal, the method of recruitment to Lower Division Clerk has been provided as under:

"(i) 90% by direct rectt. through open advertisement.

(ii) 5% of vacancies shall be filled up from amongst the Group ’D’ Staff who possess matriculation or equivalent qualifications and have rendered 5 years regular service in Group ’D’ on the basis of a Departmental Qualifying Examination. The maximum age limit for eligibility for examination is 45 years (50 years for SC/ST)

(iii) 5% of the vacancies shall be filled on seniority- cum-fitness basis from group ’D’ employees who possess Matriculation or equivalent qualification and proficiency in type-writing."

Further, Rule 7 of the said Rules provide for the power to relax, under which the Hon’ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal may by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons, where the Hon’ble Chairman is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do. (Annexure A2).

2.1. In terms of the aforesaid Rules, 1989, against the 90% vacancies (for 2 posts) of LDC, open public advertisements were made in the year 2010 on requisition made by the Deputy Registrar, CAT, Guwahati Bench to the Staff Selection Commission, Guwahati through letter dated 24.11.2009. Two(2) candidates although selected by the Staff Selection Commission but did not report for duty as such the Joint Registrar, CAT, Guwahati by the letter dated 01.03.2012 requested the Dy. Registrar, CAT, PB, Delhi to take necessary action for filling up the posts as thought fit and proper.

2.2. Similar requisition was also made to the Employment Exchange. The said requisition to the Employment exchange has been with the approval of the Hon’ble Chairman, which has been conveyed to the Registrar, CAT, Guwahati Bench by the Deputy Registrar (E), CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi through his letter dated 04.10.2010. It has been however stated in the said letter that filling up of the said 2 posts would be purely on ad hoc basis for a period of one year or till the posts are filled up on regular basis, whichever is earlier (Annexure A-3).

2.3. In response to the requisition, the Empl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top