PETITIONER:
SODAGAR SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
These special leave petition have been filed against the judgement and orders dated May 27,1996 and August 20,1996 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the write petition and the Review Petition in Regular Appeal No.191 of 1996 respectively.
The admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed on ad had basis to the post of Legal Assistant in the respondent-organisation . Rule 8 of the Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Serve Class-III Rules ,1997 provides as under:
"8. No person shall be appointed to
the service unless he has requisite
qualification and experience as
specified in column 3 of Appendix
’B’ to these rules in case of
direct appointment and appointment
by transfer and those specified in
column 4 of the aforesaid Appendix
in case of appointment by promotion
.
9 (1). appointment to the service
shall be made in the following
manner namely:-
a) * * * * * *
*
b) in the case of legal
Assistants:-
i) 20 percent by direct
recruitment; and
ii) 80 percent by promotion from
amongst the Law Graduates serving
in the Deptt. including employees
of the Punjab Roadways on the basis
of merit-cum-seniority; or
iii) by transfer or deputation of
an official already in service of
Government of India, if a suitable
candidate is not available by the
methods mentioned in sub clauses
(i) and (ii)."
A reading of Rule 8 would clearly indicate that all Law Graduates serving in the Department are eligible for consideration of promotion as Legal Assistants on the basis of merit-cum-seniority subject to the qualification and the condition mentioned in the Rules. Rule 9 (1) (b) postulates that 20% of the posts of Legal Assistants are reserved for direct recruitment. Admittedly, the petitioner came to be appointed as direct recruit on ad hoc basis to the post of Legal Assistant within that quota. When the direct recruitment is made, the Government has no power to relax the conditions required to be fulfilled for being eligible for appointment by direct recruitment and to give further promotion to the petitioner as Legal Assistant exercising the power under rule 22 relaxing rules 8 and 9 of the Rules. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, is right in its conclusion that the petitioner , having been appointed as Legal Assistant on ad hoc basis, could not continue any longer unless a regular recruitment was made. a direction, there fore, was given to the respondents to make regular recruitment and in the event of regular appointment not being made within three months, the petitioner would not continue any longer after the expiry of three months. Under these circumstances, we do not think that the High Court has committed any error of law in the above interpretation warranting interference. it is for the Government to take appropriate action under the law.
The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.