Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the seniority of a Class III employee in the Directorate of Public Health, Government of Karnataka. The appellant, Y.H. Pawar, was appointed on March 22, 1960, after his name was called from the Employment Exchange, on what the judgment describes as 'A basis' (ad hoc basis). At that time, the Ministerial Recruitment Rules had come into force in 1960, but the appellant was not regularized in service. He was regularized on May 6, 1968, and was assigned seniority with effect from the date of selection. Dissatisfied, the appellant challenged this before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1007/93, contending that since no statutory rules were in existence when he was appointed, and government orders provided that appointments made by the government or with government sanction would be regular, his seniority should be reckoned from the initial date of appointment. The Tribunal dismissed the application on April 30, 1993, following its earlier decision in Gurulingaswamy v. State. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant reiterated that his appointment must be deemed regular from inception because the government had sanctioned it, and relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, which held that where appointment is made on regular basis, seniority is determined from the initial date of appointment. The State, on the other hand, argued that no regular recruitment was made; local candidates were appointed on ad hoc basis as and when vacancies arose, and their services were regularized only after the statutory rules came into force. The State contended that the appellant could not claim higher rank than earlier candidates who were regularized according to the statutory rules. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contentions. It observed that the appointments were made on ad hoc basis without conducting any competitive examination. Local candidates were called from the Employment Exchange as and when vacancies arose, and such appointments could not be considered regular. The sanction given by the government for such appointment was only to enable the candidates to continue till statutory rules were made to regularize services. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Excise Commissioner Karnataka v. V. Sreekanta, where under similar circumstances it was held that an employee appointed as a local candidate through Employment Exchange with government sanction for ad hoc appointment could not claim seniority from the initial ad hoc date. In that case, the employee became eligible for recruitment only after Special Rules of Recruitment were framed in 1970, and his seniority was to be counted from the date of regularization under those rules. Applying that principle, the Court held that the appellant's appointment was only ad hoc, and his seniority was to be determined with effect from the date on which the statutory rules came into force. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed without costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Ad Hoc Appointment and Regularization - Not mentioned - The appellant was appointed as a Class III employee on ad hoc basis in 1960 without competitive examination and regularized in 1968 after statutory rules came into force. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dismissed his claim for seniority from initial appointment. The Supreme Court held that ad hoc appointments made by calling local candidates from Employment Exchange cannot be considered regular, and government sanction only allowed continuation until statutory rules were framed; therefore seniority must be determined from the date statutory rules came into force, not the initial date. Held that the appeal is dismissed and seniority is to be reckoned from the date statutory rules came into force.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee appointed on ad hoc basis without competitive examination and later regularized under statutory rules is entitled to seniority from the date of initial ad hoc appointment or from the date of regularization under the rules.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was only ad hoc, and seniority is to be determined from the date on which the statutory Rules came into force. No costs.
Law Points
- Ad hoc appointment without competitive examination is not regular
- Government sanction for ad hoc appointment does not confer regular status
- Seniority of ad hoc appointee regularized under statutory rules counts from date of regularization
- Direct Recruit principle not applicable to ad hoc appointments
- Employment Exchange sponsored local candidates appointed as stop-gap cannot claim retrospective seniority
