Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose over the regularisation of an ad hoc Probation Officer under the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) (Amendment) Rules, 1984. The respondent was initially appointed as Deputy Superintendent, Government Approved School (later Juvenile Home) on 26 October 1973. Applications were invited for ad hoc Probation Officer posts from departmental female candidates, and the respondent, after selection, was appointed as Probation Officer with effect from 2 June 1980. On 15 February 1983, she proceeded on maternity leave, which was sanctioned on 14 February 1983 by the District Magistrate, the controlling officer under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. She resumed duty on 16 June 1983. Meanwhile, on 4 February 1983, the State Government passed an order terminating her services, ostensibly due to regular appointments through the Public Service Commission. However, the termination order was not communicated to her before she proceeded on leave. The respondent contended that since she was allowed to resume duty and her salary for the leave period from 15 February 1983 to 15 June 1983 was later regularised by an order dated 1 November 1989, she must be deemed to have continued in service as ad hoc Probation Officer from her initial appointment. The U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (Amendment) Rules, 1984 came into force on 22 March 1984, making the 1979 Regularisation Rules applicable to persons appointed on or before 1 May 1983 who had completed three years of ad hoc service and were continuing on the date of commencement. Subsequently, by order dated 27 March 1984, the respondent was reverted retrospectively with effect from 29 February 1984 to the post of Assistant Superintendent, District Shelter Workshop, a post she had never held and to which she could not have been reverted as a direct appointee to the post of Probation Officer. On 4 May 1984, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court, which stayed the reversion and later directed the State to consider her for regularisation under the rules. The State filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the facts and found that the State's own actions—sanctioning leave on 14 February 1983 and regularising salary on 1 November 1989—treated the respondent as being in continuous service as ad hoc Probation Officer from 2 June 1980. She was in service on 22 March 1984 and had completed more than three years in the post. The attempt to revert her retrospectively was held to be mala fide and made with the express purpose of depriving her of the benefit of the rules, apart from being bad in law because she was a direct appointee and could not be reverted to a post she never held. The Court held that she was entitled to be regularised as Probation Officer under the rules and that her seniority should be fixed by the Government according to law. The special leave petition was dismissed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments - U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) (Amendment) Rules, 1984 - Respondent appointed as ad hoc Probation Officer on 2 June 1980 completed more than three years' continuous service by 22 March 1984 when the 1984 Rules came into force - State's own actions of sanctioning maternity leave and regularising salary for the leave period treated her as in continuous service - Held that she was in service on the date of commencement and entitled to regularisation under the Rules (Paras 1-5). B) Service Law - Reversion of Direct Appointee - Mala Fide Exercise - U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments Rules, 1979 and 1984 Amendment - State Government passed order on 27 March 1984 reverting respondent retrospectively from 29 February 1984 to a post she had never held - Reversion order was passed with express purpose of depriving her of benefit under the 1984 Rules and was mala fide - Being a direct appointee to the post of Probation Officer, she could not be reverted to any other post, especially one never held - Held reversion order was bad in law (Paras 4-5). C) Service Law - Regularisation and Seniority - U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments Rules, 1979 and 1984 Amendment - Respondent entitled to be regularised as Probation Officer under the Rules - Her seniority in that post to be fixed by Government according to law - Special leave petition dismissed (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent (ad hoc Probation Officer) was entitled to regularisation under the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) (Amendment) Rules, 1984, given her continuous service and the State's attempt to revert her retrospectively.
Final Decision
Special leave petition dismissed; respondent entitled to be regularised as Probation Officer under the Rules; seniority to be fixed by Government according to law; reversion order held mala fide and bad in law.
Law Points
- Continuous ad hoc service
- regularisation under U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments Rules
- mala fide reversion
- direct appointee cannot be reverted to lower post
- benefit of rules
- seniority to be fixed according to law
