Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appointments of respondents as Masters and Teachers in Haryana on an ad hoc basis between 1994 and 1996. Following a policy decision, their services were regularized in 2003. However, they claimed that their ad hoc service should count towards seniority, which was contested by the State. The respondents filed a writ petition challenging the provisional gradation list that did not consider their ad hoc service for seniority. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, leading to the appeal by the State. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant rules governing appointments and seniority, concluding that the respondents' initial appointments were not made in accordance with the prescribed procedures and thus their ad hoc service could not be counted for seniority. The court emphasized that only appointments made by the competent authority and in compliance with the rules could be considered for seniority. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the High Court's decision was legally unsustainable.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Seniority Fixation - Ad Hoc Service Not Counted - Haryana Education Service Rules, 1955, 1998 - The court held that ad hoc appointments made without following the proper procedure cannot be counted for seniority, as they were not regular appointments. The respondents' initial appointments were purely ad hoc and did not comply with the statutory requirements, thus their past service could not be considered for seniority (Paras 15-21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ad hoc service of the respondents should be counted for the purpose of seniority after their regularization.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the ad hoc service of the respondents could not be counted for seniority as their initial appointments were not made in accordance with the prescribed rules.
Law Points
- seniority fixation
- ad hoc appointments
- regularization
- Haryana Education Service Rules
- 1955
- 1998
