Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr  INSC 391 (14 March 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Bharucha S.P. (J) Paripoornan, K.S.(J)
JT 1996 (5) 521 1996 SCALE (3)508
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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.