Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Seniority of Adhoc Appointment — Clarifies Rules on Counting Seniority. The court ruled that seniority cannot be counted from the date of adhoc appointment if the appointment was not made according to the rules for regular appointment.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a dispute regarding the seniority of the appellant, Z. Ajeesudeen, who was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on an adhoc basis. The appellant was appointed on 30/09/1993, and his service was regularized on 21/06/1997. He contended that his seniority should be counted from the date of his adhoc appointment. The appellant relied on the precedent set in T. Vijayan & Ors. Vs. Divisional Railway Manager & Ors., which stated that seniority should be counted from the date of appointment. However, the court clarified that if the initial appointment was adhoc and not made according to the rules, the period of such service could not be counted for seniority. The court referenced M.K. Shanmugam Vs. Union of India, which established that only those adhoc appointments made through the same process as regular appointments could have their service counted. The court concluded that since the appellant's appointment was purely adhoc and not in accordance with the rules, his appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Seniority Calculation - Counting of Seniority from Adhoc Appointment - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The court held that seniority cannot be counted from the date of adhoc appointment if the appointment was not made according to the rules for regular appointment. The consistent view is that only those adhoc appointments made following the regular recruitment process can have their service counted for seniority. Hence, the appeal was dismissed as the appellant's initial appointment was purely adhoc and not in accordance with the rules (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the seniority of the appellant as Assistant Engineer should be counted from the date of adhoc appointment.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant's seniority could not be counted from the date of his adhoc appointment as it was not made in accordance with the rules for regular appointments.

Law Points

  • Senior appointment
  • Adhoc service
  • Regularization
  • Seniority calculation
  • Recruitment procedure
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2008 LawText (SC) (02) 457

Civil Appeal No. 1256 of 2008

2008-02-12

H.K. Sema, Markandey Katju

Z. Ajeesudeen

Union of India & Ors

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding seniority calculation for an adhoc appointment.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to have his seniority counted from the date of adhoc appointment.

Filing Reason

Grievance regarding non-counting of seniority from the date of adhoc appointment.

Previous Decisions

Previous decisions established that seniority is counted from the date of regular appointment unless the adhoc appointment followed the rules for regular appointments.

Issues

Whether seniority should be counted from the date of adhoc appointment Interpretation of rules regarding adhoc appointments

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued for counting seniority from the date of adhoc appointment based on precedents. Respondent contended that the initial appointment was purely adhoc and not according to rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court established that seniority cannot be counted from an adhoc appointment unless the appointment was made following the same procedures as regular appointments.

Judgment Excerpts

The consistent view taken by this Court is that even if an appointment is made on adhoc basis by following procedure according to the rules for regular selection, the period of such adhoc appointment could be counted. In view thereof, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Procedural History

The appeal arose from SLP(C) No. 22049/2005, with the appellant's appointment being made on 30/09/1993 and regularized on 21/06/1997.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Process Issued Without Section 202 CrPC Inquiry in Complaint Case Against Accused Residing Outside Jurisdiction. Non-compliance with mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC renders issuance of process illegal and matter rem...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Public Interest Litigation Against Unauthorized Construction — No Violation of Building Bye-Laws Established.