Sodagar
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors [1997] INSC 72 (24 January 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
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.
Back