Central Council for
Research In Homeopathy Vs. Bipin Chandra Lakhera & Ors.
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel
for the appellant and respondent No. 1. As regards the other respondents in respect
of whom service is complete no one has entered appearance on their behalf so
far. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated
24.03.2004 passed by the High Court of Sikkim in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 542
of 1998. The facts have been given in the impugned judgment and order and hence
we are not repeating the same here, except where necessary. The short question in
this Appeal is whether ad hoc service of respondent No. 1 from 1984 before his regularisation
with effect from 05.01.1996 can be added for the purpose of seniority. We are of
the opinion that it cannot. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was appointed as Research
Assistant (Homeopathy) in the service of the appellant on purely ad hoc basis by
order dated 03.02.1984 till 31.03.1984 or till the post is filled on a regular basis
whichever was earlier.
This appointment was done
without any regular selection. It may be noted that respondent No. 1 herein
(Writ petitioner before the High Court) had not applied for appointment in
response to any advertisement issued by the appellant. In his application
respondent No. 1 stated that "I have come to know through some reliable sources
that there is a post of Research Assistant lying vacant in the Central Council
for Research in Homeopathy." Accordingly, respondent No. 1 was offered the
post on a purely ad hoc basis vide order dated 03.02.1984 clearly stating that
his appointment was till 31.03.1984 or till a regularly selected candidate
joins, whichever was earlier. Thus, this appointment was made without following
any procedure. The tenure was extended by the appellant from time to time. The post
of Research Assistant was advertised in 1986 and respondent No. 1 applied for the
post and was called for an interview before a Selection Committee on 29.06.1987
but was not found suitable. However, he was continued on ad hoc basis in view
of an interim order passed by the High Court in a writ petition.
The post was again
advertised in 1995 for regular appointment and respondent No. 1 again applied, and
this time he was successful and given regular appointment with effect from
05.01.1996. It has been held by this Court in Ch. Narayana Rao Vs. Union of
India & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 247, and State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Aghore
Nath Dey & Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 371, that ad hoc service before
regularisation cannot be counted for seniority. It was contended by learned
counsel for respondent No. 1 that some others similarly situate have been given
retrospective regularisation.
This is not correct. No
one has been given benefit of ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority. The persons
mentioned in the writ petition are those persons who had been selected earlier,
whereas respondent No. 1 had not been selected. Such persons have been given seniority
only from the date of their regular appointment after selection. It has been pointed
out in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit filed by the Council before the
High Court that these persons were given seniority from the date of their
regular appointment after a regular selection.
Thus, Dr. Gautam Rakshit
was appointed on ad hoc basis on 10.08.1987, but thereafter he faced a regular
selection and was selected and given regular appointment on 12.04.1988. He has been
given seniority from 12.04.1988 and not from 10.08.1987. Similar is the case of
Dr. (Miss) I.M. Kumar, Dr. G.K. Mathew and Dr. Mohan Singh. Hence, their cases
are clearly distinguishable. In view of the decision of this Court in Ch. Narayana
Rao's case (supra), we allow this Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment
and order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. No costs.
........................J.
(MARKANDEY KATJU)
........................J.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
NEW
DELHI;
APRIL
20, 2011
Back
Pages: 1 2
