Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered an appeal by ad hoc doctors in Jammu and Kashmir against a High Court order dismissing their writ petition for regularisation. The appellants had been recruited on ad hoc basis and continued in service for over thirteen years. They contended that their long service entitled them to regularisation and approached the High Court seeking a direction to regularise their services. The High Court, following the decision in J. & K. Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan, dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court, after granting leave and hearing both sides, observed that the controversy was squarely covered by the earlier judgment. It reiterated the settled legal position that recruitment to public service must be governed by appropriate statutory rules, under which regular recruitment to the posts is made by the Public Service Commission. Consequently, ad hoc appointments are temporary appointments made de hors the rules, pending regular recruitment, and confer no right to regularisation. The Court noted that in Narinder Mohan's case, directions had been issued to set aside the High Court's Division Bench order, confirm the Single Judge's order, and direct the State Government to notify vacancies to the Public Service Commission for completion of selection within six months, with appointments within two months of recommendation; ad hoc doctors were to continue until regular selected candidates were appointed and were allowed to apply with age relaxation under Rule 9(3). Applying those directions to the present case, the Supreme Court directed the State Government to notify vacancies to the Public Service Commission within two months from the date of the order. Upon notification, the appellants were permitted to apply for regular recruitment. The Public Service Commission was to consider the claims and make selection according to rules, completing the process within three months from receipt of the requisition. The State Government was to make appointments as per rules within two months of receiving the selected list. Until then, the appellants were to continue only on ad hoc basis. Recognizing that the appellants had become age-barred for direct recruitment, the Court directed the State Government to relax the necessary age qualification to enable them to apply. The contesting respondents stated that the panel had expired during the interregnum due to the stay order of the Court; therefore, the Court extended the life of the panel for the period during which the stay order was in operation. The appeal was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. The Court did not disturb the settled principle that long ad hoc service does not create a right to regularisation.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Ad Hoc Employees - Ad hoc appointments made de hors statutory rules do not confer any right to regularisation - Appropriate statutory rules; recruitment through Public Service Commission - Appellants served over 13 years on ad hoc basis and claimed regularisation; Supreme Court reiterated settled legal position that ad hoc appointments are temporary pending regular recruitment and regular recruitment must be through Public Service Commission - Held that appellants continue on ad hoc basis until regularly selected candidates are appointed (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Age Relaxation and Panel Extension - Directions to enable ad hoc employees to apply for regular recruitment and protect panel validity - Rule 9(3) of age qualification - Since appellants became age-barred for direct recruitment, Supreme Court directed State Government to relax necessary age qualification; also extended life of panel for period during which stay order was in operation - Held accordingly (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether ad hoc employees with long service are entitled to regularisation despite recruitment rules requiring selection through Public Service Commission; what relief, including age relaxation and panel extension, should be granted pending regular selection
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of with directions: State Government to notify vacancies to Public Service Commission within two months; PSC to complete selection within three months of requisition; State to make appointments within two months of receipt of selected list; appellants to continue ad hoc till regularly selected candidates appointed; State to relax age qualification for appellants to apply; life of panel extended for period during which stay order was in operation; no costs.
Law Points
- Ad hoc appointments made de hors statutory rules are temporary and confer no right to regularisation
- regular recruitment to public posts must be made through the Public Service Commission as per appropriate statutory rules
- long ad hoc service does not create a right to regularisation
- age relaxation can be directed to enable ad hoc employees to apply for regular recruitment
- life of selection panel extended for period of stay order
