PETITIONER:
Y.H. PAWAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BHARUCHA S.P. (J)
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (5) 521 1996 SCALE (3)508
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
Appellant was appointed as a Class III employee on A basis on March 22, 1960, after his name was called from the Employment Exchange, in the Directorate of Public Health. In 1960, the Ministerial Recruitment Rules had come into force but the appellant was not regularized in the service. He came to be regularized on May 6, 1968 giving him seniority with effect from the date bn which the selection was made. The appellant challenged the action in O.A. No. 1007/93 in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which by the impugned order dated April 30, 1993 dismissed the application. Thus this appeal by special leave.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that no statutory rules were in existence when he was appointed. government issued orders that if the appointments were made by the government or with the sanction of the Government the appointments would be regular appointments. Therefore, he must be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis with effect from the initial date of appointment. His seniority has thus to be reckoned from that date. It is contended, on the other hand, by learned counsel for the respondents that at the relevant time no regular recruitment was sought to be made. Local candidates were appointed on ad hoc basis. After the statutory Rules came to be made, their services have been regularized with effect from the date of coming into force of the Rules. The action taken by the Government was upheld by the Administrative Tribunal following decision in Gurulingaswamy v. State Application No.663 of 1989] which was followed in this petition. Therefore, when the earlier candidates have been regularized according to the statutory Rules, the appellant cannot claim higher rank.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.[(1990) 2 SCC 715] where appointment was made on regular basis, the seniority was required to be determined with effect from the initial date of appointment. We find no force in the contentions. As seen the appointments are made on ad hoc basis without conducting any competitive examination. As and when vacancy had arisen local candidates were called from Employment Exchange and were appointed. Therefore, the appointments cannot be considered to have been made on regular basis. When the Rules came to be made, all the appointments are sought to be regularized. The sanction given by the Government for such an appointment is only to enable the candidates to continue till the statutory Rules are made to regularize the services.
This Court in Excise Commissioner Karnataka & Anr. v. V. Sreekanta [(1993) Supp. 3 SCC 53], in similar circumstances had considered the effect of such an appointment in paragraph 14 which reads thus:
"After giving our anxious
consideration to the respective
contention of the parties it
appears to us that the writ
petitioned respondent, Sri V.
Sreekanta, was appointed as a local
candidate through Employment
Exchange in view of the specific
sanction of the government for such
ad hoc appointment. The terms of
appointment in the context of
sanction of the said posts by the
Government, in our view, clearly
demonstrates that such appointment
of the said respondent and other
employees in 1968 was ad hoc
appointment given to local
candidates being sponsored by the
local Employment Exchange. It was
only on October 26, 1971, the said
respondent became eligible to be
recruited in the said Class III
post, and such appointment or
regularization of his ad hoc
appointment was made possible
because of the framing of the said
Special Rules of Recruitment in
1970. In our view, Mr. Narasimha
Murthy is justified in his
submission that the respondent was
not entitled to claim seniority
from the date of his initial
appointment on ad hoc basis but he
was only entitled to claim
seniority from the date of his
subsequent appointment or
regularization under the said
Special Rules of Recruitment in
1970. It appears to us that under
Rule 3 of the said Special Rules of
Recruitment of 1970, the
respondent, having possessed the
minimum qualifications prescribed
be the said Special Rules of
Recruitment for recruitment to
Class III posts and the said
respondent having been appointed on
or after January 1, 1965 as a local
candidate to a Class III post and
having put in a continuous service
of one year prior to October 1,
1970, was eligible to be appointed
under the said Special Rules of
Recruitment and the respondent was
given such appointment with effect
from October 26, 1971 under the
said Special Rules of Recruitment
of 1970. The said respondent was
entitled to be treated as direct
recruit properly made under the
said Special Rules of 1970 only
from October 26, 1971 and the
service rendered by him prior to
the said date was only on the basis
of ad hoc employment not made in
accordance with the rules of
recruitment. In the aforesaid
circumstances, the decision of the
division Bench of the Karnataka
High Court appears to be clearly
erroneous and we have no hesitation
in setting aside the same. Learned
Single Bench of the Karnataka High
Court in our view, has rightly
dismissed the writ petition and we
affirm the said decision. The
appeal is accordingly allowed
without any order as to costs."
In that view of the matter, we hold that the appointment of the appellant is only an ad hoc appointment. Accordingly, his seniority is to be determined with effect from the date on which the statutory Rules came into force.
the appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.