Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. D. Uma, was appointed on an ad-hoc basis on 10.03.1997 as a Showroom Assistant in the Office of the Regional Design and Technical Development Centre (Handicrafts), under the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. At the time of her appointment, there were no recruitment rules. She continued in service but was not regularised. She filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore, which was dismissed on 12.11.2013. Aggrieved, she filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the Tribunal's order. The Court observed that the petitioner's appointment was purely ad-hoc and not through any regular selection process. The Court held that regularisation cannot be granted to an employee who was not appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules. The petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Ad-hoc Appointment - Recruitment Rules - Petitioner appointed on ad-hoc basis on 10.03.1997 as Showroom Assistant without recruitment rules - Petitioner continued in service but was not regularised - Tribunal dismissed application - High Court held that regularisation cannot be granted as appointment was not through proper selection process - Held that ad-hoc appointees cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, appointed on ad-hoc basis without following recruitment rules, is entitled to regularisation of service.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12.11.2013.
Law Points
- Regularisation of ad-hoc employees
- Recruitment rules
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
- Central Administrative Tribunal Act
- 1985
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (06) 32
Writ Petition No.7136/2014 (S-CAT)
Justice Jayant Patel, Justice B. Sreenivase Gowda
Sri. H. Basava Raju (for petitioner), Sri. D. A. Lakshminarayanappa (for respondents)
The Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing application for regularisation of ad-hoc service.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of CAT order dated 12.11.2013 and direction for regularisation of her service.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis on 10.03.1997 and continued in service but was not regularised; CAT dismissed her application.
Previous Decisions
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, dismissed O.A. No.936/2012 on 12.11.2013.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of her ad-hoc appointment.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she was appointed when no recruitment rules existed and continued in service, hence entitled to regularisation.
Respondents opposed, stating appointment was ad-hoc and not through proper selection process.
Ratio Decidendi
An employee appointed on ad-hoc basis without following recruitment rules cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right. Regularisation requires appointment through a proper selection process.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petition is directed against the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner.
The short facts of the case appear to be that as per the petitioner, she was appointed on Ad-hoc basis on 10.03.1997 as Showroom Assistant.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed O.A. No.936/2012 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, which was dismissed on 12.11.2013. She then filed Writ Petition No.7136/2014 before the High Court of Karnataka under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
