Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 333 (MP)

Laxman Tripathi v. State of M. P.

2006-03-03

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2006
ORDER 1. The petitioner had filed Original Application No. 1445/1992 seeking seniority from the date of his initial appointment on ad hoc basis before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal the matter reached to this Court for adjudication. 2. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as 'Vaidya' Grade-l for a period of six months or till the candidates selected by the Public Service Commission are posted, whichever is earlier by order dated 17.1.1976. Pursuant to the M.P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointment Rules, 1986 (for short 'Regularisation Rules') the respondents appointed him on the post of Ayurved Medical Officer for a period of two years with a condition that he will be treated as regular employee from the date of regularization and will be kept below the persons who are selected pursuant to the recruitment rules. 3. The petitioner contends that in the seniority list (Annexure A-5) he is shown to have been confirmed on 29.4.1987 whereas he should have been confirmed from the date of his initial appointment on ad hoc basis. He further contends that since the State Government allowed him to continue for such a long period, he cannot be deprived of counting of his ad-hoc service for the purposes of seniority. He placed reliance the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association and others v. State of Maharashtra and others [ AIR 1990 SC 1607 ]. 4. The respondents filed their return. They contend that the petitioner's services have been regularized by order dated 29.4.1987 under the provisions of Regularisation Rules. In the appointment order itself it was mentioned that the petitioner shall be assigned seniority below those employees who were appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules. They placed reliance on Rule 12 of the Regularization Rules which provides that the seniority of an ad-hoc employee whose services have been regularized under the Regularization Rules shall be counted from the date of regularization. They stated that the petitioner was appointed in 1976 on ad-hoc basis. His appointment was for a period of six months or till regular candidates selected by Public Service Commission are made available. They stated that having regard to the provisions contained in Regularization Rules and having regard to the condition of the appointment order the petitioner cannot claim seniority from the date of his ad hoc appointment. 5. His appointment was for a period of six months or till regular candidates selected by Public Service Commission are made available. They stated that having regard to the provisions contained in Regularization Rules and having regard to the condition of the appointment order the petitioner cannot claim seniority from the date of his ad hoc appointment. 5. In case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association and others (supra) the Supreme Court has observed that if the appointment to a post is according to the rules, the seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. Where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to the rules and made as a stop-age arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. In M.K. Shanmugam and another v. Union of India and others [ (2000) 4 SCC 476 ] the Supreme Court has held that ad-hoc service does not count for seniority in all cases, it counts only in those cases where initial appointment though ad-hoc is made by the same process as is applicable to regular appointment and is not a stop-gap arrangement. In case of Masood Akhtar Khan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [1990 JLJ 557 = (1990) 4 SCC 24 ] the Supreme Court has held that if the initial appointment is made according to the rules, subsequent regularization of service of an employee does not entitle him to the benefit of intervening service for seniority. Similarly is the view taken by the Supreme Court in case of Y.H. Pawar v. ·State of Karnataka and another [ (1996) 10 SCC 444 ]. 6. The petitioner's appointment on ad hoc basis was not in accordance with the rules for regular appointment. The said appointment being stopgap arrangement till the selected candidates from the Public Service Commission are posted. The petitioner cannot be granted the seniority from the date of his ad hoc appointment in view of the rule 12 of the Regularisation Rules. The petitioner having accepted the benefit of regularisation under the Rules of Regularisation and on the condition mentioned in the order of his regularisation that he would not be entitled to count his past services for the purpose of seniority he is bound by it. The petitioner having accepted the benefit of regularisation under the Rules of Regularisation and on the condition mentioned in the order of his regularisation that he would not be entitled to count his past services for the purpose of seniority he is bound by it. This view has also been taken recently by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2050/2002 decided on 29.10.2005 in case of Sachindra Kumar Chatun1edi v. State of M.P. and others. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.