Case Note & Summary
The case involved appeals by appellants who were working as Commercial Class-III staff and were aggrieved by their non-consideration for seniority as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerks. The appellants had been appointed on an ad hoc basis in 1978 but were not officially selected until 1982. The railway administration had changed its policy in 1978 to prioritize the recruitment of women candidates for these positions, leading to the appointment of women over the appellants. The appellants contended that their prior service should count towards seniority, arguing that they had been continuously working in the role. The railway administration countered that the appellants' service was merely ad hoc and did not equate to a formal appointment. The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled against the appellants, stating that their ad hoc service could not be counted for seniority as they had not undergone a selection process. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the appellants' ad hoc status did not confer any rights to seniority in the cadre. The court dismissed the appeals without costs, affirming the Tribunal's findings regarding the necessity of a selection process for seniority considerations.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Seniority in Service - Counting of Ad Hoc Service - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 29 - The court held that the appellants' ad hoc service as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerks could not be counted for seniority as they were not appointed through a selection process until 1982, and thus their claims were rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as the appellants were appointed on an ad hoc basis without selection, while others were appointed through a proper process (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ad hoc continuance of the appellants in the cadre of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk can be counted for the purpose of seniority in the cadre.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the appellants' ad hoc service could not be counted for seniority as they were not appointed through a selection process until 1982.
Law Points
- seniority
- ad hoc appointment
- selection process
- promotion
- direct recruitment
