Central Council for Res. in Homeopathy v. Bipin Chandra Lakhera .
In short. The case involves an appeal by the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy against a judgment from the High Court of Sikkim regarding the seniority of respondent No. 1, Bipin Chandra Lakhera. The core issue was whether Lakhera's ad hoc service from 1984 to 1996 could be counted for seniority purposes after his regular appointment. The Supreme Court ruled that ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority, affirming the High Court's decision.
Facts
Bipin Chandra Lakhera was appointed as a Research Assistant on an ad hoc basis on February 3, 1984, without a formal selection process. His appointment was temporary, lasting until March 31, 1984, or until a regular candidate was appointed. Lakhera did not apply for the position through a formal advertisement but claimed to have learned about the vacancy through informal channels. He continued in this ad hoc role, with extensions granted over the years, despite not being selected in interviews for regular positions in 1987 and 1995. He was eventually appointed regularly on January 5, 1996.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioner, the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, argued that Lakhera's ad hoc service should not be counted for seniority as it was not based on a formal selection process. The court addressed this by referencing established precedents that support the notion that ad hoc service cannot be considered for seniority purposes, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the selection process.
Respondent Arguments
Lakhera contended that others in similar situations had been granted retrospective regularization and seniority based on their ad hoc service. The court countered this argument by clarifying that those individuals had undergone a formal selection process before being granted seniority, distinguishing their cases from Lakhera's.
Precedents considered
The court cited two key precedents
- Ch. Narayana Rao Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 247 - This case established that ad hoc service prior to regularization cannot be counted for seniority.
- State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 371 - This case similarly reinforced the principle that only service following a formal selection process should be considered for seniority.
Legal principles
The court emphasized the principle that seniority must be determined based on formal selection processes rather than ad hoc appointments. This principle is crucial in maintaining fairness and transparency in public service appointments.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court reasoned that allowing ad hoc service to count towards seniority would undermine the established selection process and could lead to arbitrary decisions. The distinction between Lakhera's case and those of others who were granted seniority was critical, as it highlighted the importance of formal selection in determining employment status and rights.
Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that Lakhera's ad hoc service could not be counted for seniority. The court did not provide specific instructions for an appeal process, as the decision was final.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the legal principle that only formally selected candidates can claim seniority based on their service. It underscores the importance of adhering to established procedures in public service appointments, ensuring that all candidates are treated fairly and equitably.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.