Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 130 (TRI)

Mrinal Kanti Datta v. State of Tripura

2014-03-19

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- Heard learned counsel, Mr. A. Bhowmik for the petitioner, learned Additional GA, Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta for respondent No. 3 and learned counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee for respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The petitioner, a B.SC. (Hons) in Physiology, was offered the post of Blind Educator temporarily, in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,700-65-2220-70-2780-3980, vide Memo dated 29.7.92 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by the respondent No. 2 and accordingly, the petitioner accepted the offer. Appointment letter dated 14.10.1992 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was issued by the respondent No. 2 in the name of the petitioner and he joined the post on 19.10.1992. As per the terms of the offer of appointment, the petitioner was supposed to undergo any training if required by the Government and the services of the petitioner failing to successfully complete the training, for which he might have been deputed, even in three chances, shall be liable for termination. He was posted against a vacant post of Blind Educator as per the Memo of Appointment dated 10.10.1992. The Recruitment Rules for appointment to the post of Blind Educator in the institute of visually handicapped, under the Education Department of the Government of Tripura was made on 12.01.1973 and a copy of the Recruitment Rule annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The essential educational and other qualifications required for recruitment to the post were- (i) Graduate of a recognized University; (ii) One academic year training in education of blind conducted by the Government of India, Department of Social Welfare; (iii) Knowledge in Bengali. Item 13 of the Schedule to the Rule prescribes that TPSC was not required to be consulted in making the recruitment. The petitioner was possessing all the required qualification except that he did not have one academic year training in education of blind conducted by the Government of India, Department of Social Welfare. Item 13 of the Schedule to the Rule prescribes that TPSC was not required to be consulted in making the recruitment. The petitioner was possessing all the required qualification except that he did not have one academic year training in education of blind conducted by the Government of India, Department of Social Welfare. It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant point of time qualified person with such training was not available and as such, one Smt. Sabita Debbarma and One Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) having no training qualification were recruited to the post of Blind Educator and thereafter, were sent for training at Government expenses and on completion of training, they were appointed vide Memo dated 11.09.1984 issued by the respondent No. 2. The services of Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) was regularized with effect from the date of ad-hoc appointment by a Memo dated 25.05.1998. Copy of Memo dated 11.09.1984 and 25.05.1998 annexed as Annexure-4 and 5 to the writ petition. It is contended by the petitioner that the Blind Educators appointed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, till the appointment of the petitioner had no training at the time of recruitment and all of them including Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) were sent for in service training on duty with all benefits of service. After their ad-hoc service for 10/12 years, the ad-hoc appointment was regularized from the date of their respective initial appointment as Blind Educator. Such benefits were given to Smt. Mridula Adhikari, Sri Sunil Deb, Sri Mantu Das, Sri Sajal Kanti Bhowmik and Sri Amit Kr. Roy. On his appointment to the post of Blind Educator, the petitioner was posted in the Institute for Visually Handicapped (Girls), Badharghat and the Vice Principal of the Institute on 12.02.1996, taking consent of the petitioner sent proposal to the authority to send the petitioner for training and the letter as well as the consent of the petitioner marked as Annexure-6 and 6A to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted petitions for sending him for training on 26.03.1999 (Annexure-7), 24.06.1999 (Annexure-8), 11.12.1999 (Annexure-9), 11.04.2000 (Annexure-10), 30.11.2001 (Annexure-11), 02.05.2001 (Annexure-13) and 10.01.2002 (Annexure-14), but the authority did not send him for the training of Blind Educator. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted petitions for sending him for training on 26.03.1999 (Annexure-7), 24.06.1999 (Annexure-8), 11.12.1999 (Annexure-9), 11.04.2000 (Annexure-10), 30.11.2001 (Annexure-11), 02.05.2001 (Annexure-13) and 10.01.2002 (Annexure-14), but the authority did not send him for the training of Blind Educator. The prayer of the petitioner to issue no objection certificate for training was also refused by the respondent No. 2 vide Memo dated 14.02.2000 and copy of that Memo annexed as Annexure-12. Vide Memo dated 30.01.2002 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition), pursuant to the application of the petitioner, the petitioner was allowed to undergo Blind Educator Teachers Training for visually handicapped at Ramkrishna Mission Blind Boys' Academy, Narendrapur, Kolkata on condition that the entire training cost will be borne by him and he will apply for admissible leave to undergo the training. It is contended by the petitioner that the State-respondents singled out him in the matter of training by not treating the period of training on duty although all other similarly situated Blind Educators were provided with the training treating the period of training as on duty with all benefits of service. It is mentioned by the petitioner that respondent No. 6 (Sri Sambhu Debnath) while on ad-hoc service was sent for the said training at State expenses treating his period of training as on duty whereas the application for the study leave of the petitioner was refused by the respondent dated. 16.03.2002. Memo dated 30.01.2002 and letter dated 16.03.2002 annexed as Annexure-15 and 16 to the writ petition. The petitioner completed his training satisfactorily in September, 2003, but the respondents still treated him to be on ad-hoc service. After completion of training, the petitioner submitted an application on 09.04.2004 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) for regularizing his service to the post of Blind Educator from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 19.10.1992, but it was not done. Respondent No. 2 thereafter, issued Memo dated 24.04.2006 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) and asked the petitioner that his ad-hoc appointment may be discontinued unless he passes through TPSC selection process and asked him to apply for the post of Blind Educator to the Tripura Public Service Commission in response to advertisement No. 02 of 2006 dated 01.04.2006 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) and accordingly, the petitioner applied for selection through TPSC. It is contended by the petitioner that he stood first class first in the training examination and also stood first in the selection made by TPSC. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued Memo dated 14.09.2006 appointing the petitioner to the post of Blind Educator in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-Rs. 10700/- without regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 19.10.1992 and without giving him any protection of pay. Memo dated 14.09.2006 and 10.11.2006 annexed as Annexure-20 and 21. It is stated by the petitioner that under compelling circumstances, he submitted joining report in the post of Blind Educator with effect from 18.09.2006 and thereafter, he submitted several representations for giving effect of regularization with effect from the date of his initial appointment as well as his seniority and pay protection. Respondent No. 2 issued Memo dated 13.09.2007 and thereby, refused to give pay protection and seniority to the petitioner on the ground that his service was not regularized from the date of his ad-hoc appointment. It is stated by the petitioner that respondent No. 2, however, allowed such pay protection to one Somen Chakraborty, Supervisor, ICDS under similar circumstances where his service was regularized. The copy of the representations submitted by the petitioner annexed as Annexure-22 and 23 and copy of Memo dated 13.09.2007 annexed as Annexure-25. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed in the post of Blind Educator with effect from 19.10.1992 in a regular vacancy on time scale of pay with annual increments and when he was regularized, the effect of regularization was wrongly not given from the date of his joining the service i.e. 19.10.1992. The State-respondents published a seniority list vide Memo dated 13.08.2007 and he has been shown as junior to respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 though he joined the post of Blind Educator long prior to those respondents. A copy of the seniority list dated 13.08.2007 is annexed as Annexure-26. The petitioner lastly contended that while he was in service, he applied for no objection for submitting applications for better job before expiry of his age bar, but the State-respondents did not allow the petitioner to apply for better employment. He annexed the copy of his application for such better job as Annexure-27 and 28. The petitioner issued demand notice claiming the relief, but the respondents remained silent. Copy of the demand notice annexed as Annexure-29. He annexed the copy of his application for such better job as Annexure-27 and 28. The petitioner issued demand notice claiming the relief, but the respondents remained silent. Copy of the demand notice annexed as Annexure-29. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for direction to the respondents to give retrospective effect of regularization with effect from his date of joining i.e. 19.10.1992 and also prayed for his seniority and pay protection and all service benefits for the period from July, 2002 to May, 2003, the period he was in the training of Blind Educator. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing a joint counter affidavit contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Blind Educator on ad-hoc basis. According to the Recruitment Rules, a Blind Educator must have educational and other qualification as prescribed in the Rule which consist of one academic year training in education of blind conducted by the Government of India, Department of Social Welfare and the petitioner was not having that essential qualification mentioned in serial No. 7(2) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 1973. Therefore, his service could not be regularized and he continued in ad-hoc appointment. He was requested to acquire the qualification of one year training, but he was not interested to go for the training at his own cost. However, he has completed his training in September, 2003 and after completion of training he submitted his application for regularization of his service to the post of Blind Educator with effect from the date of initial appointment, but the department has instructed him to pass the TPSC selection process for regularization of his service. The petitioner responded to such requirement and he passed the TPSC selection process. Thereafter, he was appointed as Blind Educator vide Memo dated 14.09.2006 and he joined the post on 18.09.2006. It is contended that in spite of his representation, the Department could not regularized his ad-hoc service from the date of his initial appointment as he was not qualified to be appointed under Recruitment Rules. It is further contended by the respondents that there was no instance that the department appointed a person in the post of Blind Educator directly without the required essential qualification on ad-hoc basis and thereafter sent for the training at Government expenses. It is further contended by the respondents that there was no instance that the department appointed a person in the post of Blind Educator directly without the required essential qualification on ad-hoc basis and thereafter sent for the training at Government expenses. Smt. Sabita Debbarma and Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami), Principal of the Institute of visually handicapped were teachers, who came to the department after passing long years of service in the Education Department. They were sent for training for their skill development only. So, their cases were different to that case of the petitioner. It is also stated by the respondents that Sri Sambhu Debnath (respondent No. 6) was instructor-cum-Warden in the Institute for Visually Handicapped (IVH) under the department and he was a physically disabled person. He was given promotion as a Blind Educator pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Schedule to the Rules of 1973 and his case was different from the case of the petitioner. It is also stated that as per serial No. 13 of the Schedule 1 to the Recruitment Rules of 1973, TPSC was not required to be consulted, but since the post of Blind Educator is the feeder post of the Principal of the Institute for the Visually Handicapped, the department considered it necessary to consult with TPSC. Therefore, the department instructed him to pass the TPSC selection process for regularizing his service. The petitioner responded and passed TPSC and thereafter, his service was regularized, but his past service could not be regularized since he was on ad-hoc service. It is also contended that Somen Chakraborty was a Supervisor of ICDS and he was having with requisite qualifications as per Recruitment Rules for the post of Supervisor, ICDS. He appeared and passed TPSC selection process and thereafter, he was allowed protection of pay. So, the case of Somen Chakraborty was different from the case of the petitioner. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Respondent No. 3 also filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that the respondent has been unnecessarily arrayed in the writ case and no relief is sought against the respondent. It is also submitted that TPSC conducted an examination for selection of candidates to the post of Blind Educator in which the petitioner also participated as a candidate and he stood first in the selection process. 4. It is also submitted that TPSC conducted an examination for selection of candidates to the post of Blind Educator in which the petitioner also participated as a candidate and he stood first in the selection process. 4. Respondent No. 4 to 6 also filed counter affidavit supporting the contention of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is contended by the respondents that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed directly having all essential qualification to the post of Blind Educator in the Institute for Visually Handicapped having been recommended by the TPSC on 28.08.2002 and 17.08.2000 and respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Blind Educator from the post of Instructor-cum-Warden against a promotional quota on 20.02.2004. The respondents were regularly appointed in the post of Blind Educator before the petitioner's service was regularized and hence, the respondents are senior to the petitioner and their seniority cannot be affected since the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of his past service as an ad-hoc appointee. 5. Following points emerged for consideration and decision:- (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of his service with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of his temporary/ad-hoc appointment dated 19.10.1992? (ii) Whether the petitioner was discriminated against in respect of his service benefits while one year training in education of blind during the period from July, 2002 to May, 2003? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get his seniority and pay protection? 6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is a science graduate with honours in physiology and the State-respondents offered him the post of Blind Educator temporarily in the pay scale of Rs. 1700-65-2220-70-2780-3980 vide Memo dated 29.07.1992 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the petitioner accepted offer and accordingly, he joined the post on 19.10.1992. In Annexure-1, there is no mention that the offer has been given on ad-hoc basis, but it has been clearly mentioned that the offer was purely temporary. Annexure-2 shows that he was entertained against a vacant post of Blind Educator temporarily on ad-hoc basis. 6.1. Admittedly, the petitioner was not having with the requisite qualification as prescribed in item No. 7 of Schedule 1 to the Recruitment Rules. The offer of appointment (Annexure-1) contains a condition that the appointee shall have to undergo any training if required by the Government. 6.1. Admittedly, the petitioner was not having with the requisite qualification as prescribed in item No. 7 of Schedule 1 to the Recruitment Rules. The offer of appointment (Annexure-1) contains a condition that the appointee shall have to undergo any training if required by the Government. Since the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification of one academic year training in the education of blind, it is to be presumed that he was supposed to undergo that training and subject to that he was appointed to the post of Blind Educator. Since the petitioner was consciously appointed by the respondents to the post of Blind Educator without having the requisite qualification of one year training, besides the responsibility of the petitioner, it was also the responsibility of the State-respondents to send the petitioner for the requisite training. The petitioner brought on record that he made several representations for sending him to the training of Blind Educator, but the respondents did not pay any heed. Annexure-6, 6A, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 all are representation of the petitioner for sending him for the training, but the State-respondents did not send him for the said training. Annexure-12 shows that the petitioner's prayer for giving him no objection to undergo the training was rejecting stating that the no objection could not be considered at that time. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner made several attempts to undergo training of Blind Educator while was in temporary/ad-hoc service, but the respondents did not send him pursuant to the approach made by the petitioner. 6.2. Respondents contended that the petitioner was not interested to go for the training at his own cost and therefore, he was continued as an ad-hoc appointee. In support of the contention of the respondents, no evidence placed on record that on any occasion, the order of the respondents regarding training was disobeyed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was all along desirous of undergoing the Blind Educator training as per the requisite requirement, but the State-respondents did not consider his prayer and therefore, he was compelled to continue in the service as a temporary/ad-hoc appointee. 7. The petitioner also contended that while he was in ad-hoc service, he applied for 'no objection certificate' for submitting applications for better job prior to the expiry of his age bar, but the respondents did not allow. 7. The petitioner also contended that while he was in ad-hoc service, he applied for 'no objection certificate' for submitting applications for better job prior to the expiry of his age bar, but the respondents did not allow. He brought on record annexure-27 and 28 in support thereof, which shows that his prayer was forwarded to the respondent No. 2 with the observation of the dealing officer that he was serving satisfactorily, but 'no objection' was not accorded as sought by him. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit simply stated that he was at liberty to go for any other job. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik emphatically submitted that repeated approach of the petitioner for his undergoing training of Blind Educator were not considered by the State-respondents and thereafter, he was compelled to undergo the training at his own cost at Ramkrishna Mission Blind Boys' Academy, Narendrapur, Kolkata after taking leave whereas, such benefits were made available to others during the time of training. The petitioner approached for study leave and that was also turned down. 9. Learned Additional GA has submitted that since the petitioner was on ad-hoc service, he was supposed to go for training at his own cost. The instances given by the petitioner in respect of service benefits while on training are not correct. On behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that one Smt. Sabita Debbarma and another Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) were posted as Blind Educator and thereafter, they were sent for the training. It is brought on record that Smt. Sabita Debbarma and Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) were working in the Education Department of the Government of Tripura and Annexure-30 to the rejoinder affidavit shows that they were sent for the training in the year 1983 and TA, DA was provided to them. Annexure-4 shows that said Smt. Sabita Debbarma and Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) were appointed as Blind Educator in the month of September, 1984. So, they were appointed after their training in the Blind education and not before that. However, it is clear from the documents that they were sent for the training with TA, DA and other service benefits, whilest in the case of the petitioner, he was not given the service benefits while on training and he was asked to go for the training, taking leave and at his own cost (Annexure-15 to the writ petition). However, it is clear from the documents that they were sent for the training with TA, DA and other service benefits, whilest in the case of the petitioner, he was not given the service benefits while on training and he was asked to go for the training, taking leave and at his own cost (Annexure-15 to the writ petition). It is contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 6 was sent for training at State expenses treating the training period as on duty. Annexure-26 shows that respondent No. 6 was appointed as a Blind Educator on 20.02.2004 on promotion from the post of Instructor-cum-Warden. Respondents did not controvert this contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 6 was sent for the Blind Educator training at the State expenses and since it is not controverted, it has to be presumed that respondent No. 6 was sent for the training at the State expenses whereas the petitioner was compelled to go for the training at his own cost taking admissible leave. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was discriminated by the State-respondents in respect of his service benefits while undergoing training during the period from July, 2002 to May, 2003. 10. Vide Memo dated 30.01.2002 (Annexure-15), the petitioner was asked to undergo the Blind Educators training at Ramkrishna Mission Blind Boys' Academy, Narendrapur, Kolkata and this is the only evidence brought on record when the respondents allowed the petitioner to undergo the required training and it shows that he was asked to take leave for the training and that he has to undergo the training at his own cost. It is stated by the petitioner that he ranked first class first in the training examination and he completed his training satisfactorily in September, 2003 and he submitted application on 09.04.2004 for regularizing his service with all service benefits from the date of his initial appointment. It is submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner was in continuous service without break from the date of his joining i.e. 19.10.1992. He served sincerely and with all satisfaction and there is no grievance of the respondents in respect of service rendered by the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner was in continuous service without break from the date of his joining i.e. 19.10.1992. He served sincerely and with all satisfaction and there is no grievance of the respondents in respect of service rendered by the petitioner. So, when the petitioner completed his training course, the respondents were bound to regularize his service immediately thereafter, but the respondents arbitrarily did not do so whereas directed the petitioner to pass through the TPSC selection process. Referring to the Recruitment Rules, learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that the Rule clearly prescribes that consultation of TPSC in making recruitment was not applicable, but the respondents compelled the petitioner to go for the selection process through TPSC and the petitioner having so compelled appeared in the TPSC examination and he stood first. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was regularized by Memo dated 14.09.2006 (Annexure-20 and 21), but the benefit of his first service was not given. He was supposed to be regularized with retrospective effect from the date of his initial appointment on 19.10.1992. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of G.P. Doval and others v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 1527 . Learned Additional GA, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis since he had no requisite qualification. When he acquired requisite qualification, he was asked to pass through the TPSC since the post of Blind Educator is the feeder post of the Principal, Blind Educator. TPSC selection was therefore necessary and the Government took a conscious decision for selection through TPSC. There was nothing wrong in such process of selection. It is also contended by learned Additional GA, Mr. Chakraborty that ad-hoc service is no service in the eye of law for the purpose of seniority and pay protection etc. The petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to get regularization of his service with retrospective effect from the date of his joining on 19.10.1992. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. Banerjee, appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 supporting the contention of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to get pay protection and seniority over the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The respondent Nos. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. Banerjee, appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 supporting the contention of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to get pay protection and seniority over the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were regularly appointed before the petitioner in the substantive post and so, the petitioner being an ad-hoc appointee cannot claim seniority over the respondents. In support of his contention, learned counsel referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Vijay Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2901 and the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and Anr. v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 401. 12. The petitioner was given offer by the respondent No. 2 for the post of Blind Educator temporarily (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). He was given appointment vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition temporarily to the post of Blind Educator on ad-hoc basis with effect from the date of his joining and it is clearly stipulated that he was entertained against the vacant post of Blind Educator under the Directorate. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 2 consciously against a vacant post of Blind Educator temporarily on ad-hoc basis. There is no break in the service of the petitioner from 19.10.1992. The petitioner brought on record that Smt. Sabita Debbarma and Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) were sent for Blind Educator's training with all service benefits and TA, DA. It is also contended in Para. 5 of the writ petition that besides Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami), Sri Sunil Deb, Sri Mantu Das, Sri Sajal Kanti Bhowmik and Sri Amit Kr. Roy were also sent for the training treating them on duty with all benefits of service. The contention that Sri Sunil Deb, Sri Mantu Das, Sri Sajal Kanti Bhowmik and Sri Amit Kr. Roy were also given the service benefits while on training has not been denied or disputed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit and it is simply stated that the teachers, who had come to the department after long service in the Education Department were sent for training for their skill development only. Roy were also given the service benefits while on training has not been denied or disputed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit and it is simply stated that the teachers, who had come to the department after long service in the Education Department were sent for training for their skill development only. So, the case of Smt. Sabita Debbarma and Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) is different from the case of the petitioner. Those persons mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition were in the Government service in the Education Department as claimed by the respondents. The petitioner was also in service under the respondents may be temporarily or on ad-hoc basis, but it was continuous without any interruption in a particular post with definite pay scale and increment etc. So, the respondents should not have treated the petitioner differently from that of those persons, who also joined the department of the respondents from others department. If they were entitled to all service benefits, there was no reason for the respondents in not allowing the petitioner of such benefits. The case of Sri Sambhu Debnath i.e. respondent No. 6 is quite clear. He was working in the department of the State-respondents as an Instructor-cum-Warden and according to the respondents, he was promoted to the post of Blind Educator on 20.02.2004. He has been given all the benefits of his past service, but in case of the petitioner, such benefits have been refused only on the plea that he was on ad-hoc service. The petitioner also set the example of another Somen Chakraborty, a Supervisor of ICDS, who was also given all pay protection and other service benefits. Respondents contended that service benefits was afforded to Somen Chakraborty since he was already working as a Supervisor of ICDS and appeared through TPSC selection process. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner has been discriminated from his legitimate entitlement of service benefits from the date of his initial appointment. The Supreme Court in the case of G.P. Doval (supra) in Para. 15 of the judgment has held that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list. Para. The Supreme Court in the case of G.P. Doval (supra) in Para. 15 of the judgment has held that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list. Para. 15 of the judgment may be gainfully quoted here, which reads as follows:- 15. Now if there was no binding rule of seniority it is well-settled that length of continuous officiation prescribes a valid principle of seniority. The question is from what date the service is to be reckoned? It was urged that any appointment of a stop-gap nature or pending the selection by Public Service Commission cannot be taken into account for reckoning seniority. In other words, it was urged that to be in the cadre and to enjoy place in the seniority list, the service rendered in a substantive capacity can alone be taken into consideration. We find it difficult to accept this bald and wide submission. Each case will depend upon its facts and circumstances. If a stop-gap appointment is made and the appointee appears before the Public Service Commission when the latter proceeds to select the candidates and is selected, we see no justification for ignoring his past service. At any rate, there is no justification for two persons selected in the same manner being differently treated. That becomes crystal clear from the place assigned in the seniority list to petitioner No. 1 in relation to respondent No. 7. In fact if once a person appointed in a stop-gap arrangement is confirmed in his post by proper selection, his past service has to be given credit and he has to be assigned seniority accordingly unless a rule to the contrary is made. That has not been done in the case of all the petitioners. The error is apparent in the case of petitioner 1 and respondent No. 7. These errors can be multiplied but we consider it unnecessary to do so. In fact a fair rule of seniority should ordinarily take into account the past service if the stop-gap arrangement is followed by confirmation. The error is apparent in the case of petitioner 1 and respondent No. 7. These errors can be multiplied but we consider it unnecessary to do so. In fact a fair rule of seniority should ordinarily take into account the past service if the stop-gap arrangement is followed by confirmation. This view which we are taking is borne out by the decision of this Court in Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P., ( AIR 1981 SC 41 : (1981) 1 SCR 449 ), wherein this Court observed that the principle which has received the sanction of this Court's pronouncement is that 'officiating service in a post for all practical purposes of seniority is as good as service on a regular basis. It may be permissible, within limits for Government to ignore officiating service and count only regular service when claims of seniority come before it, provided the rules in that regard are clear and categorical and do not admit of any ambiguity and cruelly arbitrary cut-off of long years of service does not take place or there is functionally and qualitatively, substantial difference in the service rendered in the two types of posts.' It was said that service rules will have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16. It is thus well-settled that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list. Admittedly, that has not been done and the seniority list is drawn up from the date on which the approval/selection was made by the Public Service Commission in respect of each member of the service, which is clearly violative of Art. 16, and any seniority list drawn up on this invalid basis must be quashed. 13. The decision in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) and Bhupendra Nath Hazarika (supra) referred by learned counsel, Mr. Banerjee appears to be on a distinguishable fact. The principle laid down in those reported cases cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. In the case of Vijay Singh (supra), the person was appointed purely on temporary basis for a fixed period by an authority other than the one, who was competent to make regular appointment to the service. The principle laid down in those reported cases cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. In the case of Vijay Singh (supra), the person was appointed purely on temporary basis for a fixed period by an authority other than the one, who was competent to make regular appointment to the service. In the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika (supra), the recruitment was made dehors the Rules and so, the Apex Court has held that the person appointed should not be given the benefit of the length of the service. In the case at hand, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 2, who was the competent authority, in a vacant post with a definite pay scale as a Blind Educator temporarily on ad-hoc basis and he continued his job without any interruption. He was lacking the qualification of one year training and in the Offer of Appointment, it was mentioned that he was supposed to undergo the training required by the department. He has undergone the training successfully when the department arranged/allowed him for undergoing the training. So, the petitioner was not with any fault of his own for regularization of his service. The principles laid down in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika (supra) wherein the case of Vijay Singh (supra), also referred, therefore, in my considered opinion, cannot be applied in the present case. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to get regularization of his service with effect from the date of his joining i.e. from 19.10.1992. He is also entitled to get seniority, pay protection etc. from the date of his joining i.e. with effect from 19.10.1992. He is further entitled to get all service benefits during the course of his training with effect from July, 2002 to May, 2003. 15. Respondents are accordingly, directed to give the benefits to the petitioner within 45 (forty five) days from today. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost. S.C. Das, J.:- Heard learned counsel, Mr. A. Bhowmik for the petitioner, learned Additional GA, Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta for respondent No. 3 and learned counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee for respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The petitioner, a B.SC. Parties to bear their own cost. S.C. Das, J.:- Heard learned counsel, Mr. A. Bhowmik for the petitioner, learned Additional GA, Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta for respondent No. 3 and learned counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee for respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The petitioner, a B.SC. (Hons) in Physiology, was offered the post of Blind Educator temporarily, in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,700-65-2220-70-2780-3980, vide Memo dated 29.7.92 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by the respondent No. 2 and accordingly, the petitioner accepted the offer. Appointment letter dated 14.10.1992 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was issued by the respondent No. 2 in the name of the petitioner and he joined the post on 19.10.1992. As per the terms of the offer of appointment, the petitioner was supposed to undergo any training if required by the Government and the services of the petitioner failing to successfully complete the training, for which he might have been deputed, even in three chances, shall be liable for termination. He was posted against a vacant post of Blind Educator as per the Memo of Appointment dated 10.10.1992. The Recruitment Rules for appointment to the post of Blind Educator in the institute of visually handicapped, under the Education Department of the Government of Tripura was made on 12.01.1973 and a copy of the Recruitment Rule annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The essential educational and other qualifications required for recruitment to the post were- (i) Graduate of a recognized University; (ii) One academic year training in education of blind conducted by the Government of India, Department of Social Welfare; (iii) Knowledge in Bengali. Item 13 of the Schedule to the Rule prescribes that TPSC was not required to be consulted in making the recruitment. The petitioner was possessing all the required qualification except that he did not have one academic year training in education of blind conducted by the Government of India, Department of Social Welfare. Item 13 of the Schedule to the Rule prescribes that TPSC was not required to be consulted in making the recruitment. The petitioner was possessing all the required qualification except that he did not have one academic year training in education of blind conducted by the Government of India, Department of Social Welfare. It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant point of time qualified person with such training was not available and as such, one Smt. Sabita Debbarma and One Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) having no training qualification were recruited to the post of Blind Educator and thereafter, were sent for training at Government expenses and on completion of training, they were appointed vide Memo dated 11.09.1984 issued by the respondent No. 2. The services of Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) was regularized with effect from the date of ad-hoc appointment by a Memo dated 25.05.1998. Copy of Memo dated 11.09.1984 and 25.05.1998 annexed as Annexure-4 and 5 to the writ petition. It is contended by the petitioner that the Blind Educators appointed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, till the appointment of the petitioner had no training at the time of recruitment and all of them including Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) were sent for in service training on duty with all benefits of service. After their ad-hoc service for 10/12 years, the ad-hoc appointment was regularized from the date of their respective initial appointment as Blind Educator. Such benefits were given to Smt. Mridula Adhikari, Sri Sunil Deb, Sri Mantu Das, Sri Sajal Kanti Bhowmik and Sri Amit Kr. Roy. On his appointment to the post of Blind Educator, the petitioner was posted in the Institute for Visually Handicapped (Girls), Badharghat and the Vice Principal of the Institute on 12.02.1996, taking consent of the petitioner sent proposal to the authority to send the petitioner for training and the letter as well as the consent of the petitioner marked as Annexure-6 and 6A to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted petitions for sending him for training on 26.03.1999 (Annexure-7), 24.06.1999 (Annexure-8), 11.12.1999 (Annexure-9), 11.04.2000 (Annexure-10), 30.11.2001 (Annexure-11), 02.05.2001 (Annexure-13) and 10.01.2002 (Annexure-14), but the authority did not send him for the training of Blind Educator. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted petitions for sending him for training on 26.03.1999 (Annexure-7), 24.06.1999 (Annexure-8), 11.12.1999 (Annexure-9), 11.04.2000 (Annexure-10), 30.11.2001 (Annexure-11), 02.05.2001 (Annexure-13) and 10.01.2002 (Annexure-14), but the authority did not send him for the training of Blind Educator. The prayer of the petitioner to issue no objection certificate for training was also refused by the respondent No. 2 vide Memo dated 14.02.2000 and copy of that Memo annexed as Annexure-12. Vide Memo dated 30.01.2002 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition), pursuant to the application of the petitioner, the petitioner was allowed to undergo Blind Educator Teachers Training for visually handicapped at Ramkrishna Mission Blind Boys' Academy, Narendrapur, Kolkata on condition that the entire training cost will be borne by him and he will apply for admissible leave to undergo the training. It is contended by the petitioner that the State-respondents singled out him in the matter of training by not treating the period of training on duty although all other similarly situated Blind Educators were provided with the training treating the period of training as on duty with all benefits of service. It is mentioned by the petitioner that respondent No. 6 (Sri Sambhu Debnath) while on ad-hoc service was sent for the said training at State expenses treating his period of training as on duty whereas the application for the study leave of the petitioner was refused by the respondent dated. 16.03.2002. Memo dated 30.01.2002 and letter dated 16.03.2002 annexed as Annexure-15 and 16 to the writ petition. The petitioner completed his training satisfactorily in September, 2003, but the respondents still treated him to be on ad-hoc service. After completion of training, the petitioner submitted an application on 09.04.2004 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) for regularizing his service to the post of Blind Educator from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 19.10.1992, but it was not done. Respondent No. 2 thereafter, issued Memo dated 24.04.2006 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) and asked the petitioner that his ad-hoc appointment may be discontinued unless he passes through TPSC selection process and asked him to apply for the post of Blind Educator to the Tripura Public Service Commission in response to advertisement No. 02 of 2006 dated 01.04.2006 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) and accordingly, the petitioner applied for selection through TPSC. It is contended by the petitioner that he stood first class first in the training examination and also stood first in the selection made by TPSC. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued Memo dated 14.09.2006 appointing the petitioner to the post of Blind Educator in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-Rs. 10700/- without regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 19.10.1992 and without giving him any protection of pay. Memo dated 14.09.2006 and 10.11.2006 annexed as Annexure-20 and 21. It is stated by the petitioner that under compelling circumstances, he submitted joining report in the post of Blind Educator with effect from 18.09.2006 and thereafter, he submitted several representations for giving effect of regularization with effect from the date of his initial appointment as well as his seniority and pay protection. Respondent No. 2 issued Memo dated 13.09.2007 and thereby, refused to give pay protection and seniority to the petitioner on the ground that his service was not regularized from the date of his ad-hoc appointment. It is stated by the petitioner that respondent No. 2, however, allowed such pay protection to one Somen Chakraborty, Supervisor, ICDS under similar circumstances where his service was regularized. The copy of the representations submitted by the petitioner annexed as Annexure-22 and 23 and copy of Memo dated 13.09.2007 annexed as Annexure-25. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed in the post of Blind Educator with effect from 19.10.1992 in a regular vacancy on time scale of pay with annual increments and when he was regularized, the effect of regularization was wrongly not given from the date of his joining the service i.e. 19.10.1992. The State-respondents published a seniority list vide Memo dated 13.08.2007 and he has been shown as junior to respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 though he joined the post of Blind Educator long prior to those respondents. A copy of the seniority list dated 13.08.2007 is annexed as Annexure-26. The petitioner lastly contended that while he was in service, he applied for no objection for submitting applications for better job before expiry of his age bar, but the State-respondents did not allow the petitioner to apply for better employment. He annexed the copy of his application for such better job as Annexure-27 and 28. The petitioner issued demand notice claiming the relief, but the respondents remained silent. Copy of the demand notice annexed as Annexure-29. He annexed the copy of his application for such better job as Annexure-27 and 28. The petitioner issued demand notice claiming the relief, but the respondents remained silent. Copy of the demand notice annexed as Annexure-29. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for direction to the respondents to give retrospective effect of regularization with effect from his date of joining i.e. 19.10.1992 and also prayed for his seniority and pay protection and all service benefits for the period from July, 2002 to May, 2003, the period he was in the training of Blind Educator. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing a joint counter affidavit contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Blind Educator on ad-hoc basis. According to the Recruitment Rules, a Blind Educator must have educational and other qualification as prescribed in the Rule which consist of one academic year training in education of blind conducted by the Government of India, Department of Social Welfare and the petitioner was not having that essential qualification mentioned in serial No. 7(2) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 1973. Therefore, his service could not be regularized and he continued in ad-hoc appointment. He was requested to acquire the qualification of one year training, but he was not interested to go for the training at his own cost. However, he has completed his training in September, 2003 and after completion of training he submitted his application for regularization of his service to the post of Blind Educator with effect from the date of initial appointment, but the department has instructed him to pass the TPSC selection process for regularization of his service. The petitioner responded to such requirement and he passed the TPSC selection process. Thereafter, he was appointed as Blind Educator vide Memo dated 14.09.2006 and he joined the post on 18.09.2006. It is contended that in spite of his representation, the Department could not regularized his ad-hoc service from the date of his initial appointment as he was not qualified to be appointed under Recruitment Rules. It is further contended by the respondents that there was no instance that the department appointed a person in the post of Blind Educator directly without the required essential qualification on ad-hoc basis and thereafter sent for the training at Government expenses. It is further contended by the respondents that there was no instance that the department appointed a person in the post of Blind Educator directly without the required essential qualification on ad-hoc basis and thereafter sent for the training at Government expenses. Smt. Sabita Debbarma and Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami), Principal of the Institute of visually handicapped were teachers, who came to the department after passing long years of service in the Education Department. They were sent for training for their skill development only. So, their cases were different to that case of the petitioner. It is also stated by the respondents that Sri Sambhu Debnath (respondent No. 6) was instructor-cum-Warden in the Institute for Visually Handicapped (IVH) under the department and he was a physically disabled person. He was given promotion as a Blind Educator pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Schedule to the Rules of 1973 and his case was different from the case of the petitioner. It is also stated that as per serial No. 13 of the Schedule 1 to the Recruitment Rules of 1973, TPSC was not required to be consulted, but since the post of Blind Educator is the feeder post of the Principal of the Institute for the Visually Handicapped, the department considered it necessary to consult with TPSC. Therefore, the department instructed him to pass the TPSC selection process for regularizing his service. The petitioner responded and passed TPSC and thereafter, his service was regularized, but his past service could not be regularized since he was on ad-hoc service. It is also contended that Somen Chakraborty was a Supervisor of ICDS and he was having with requisite qualifications as per Recruitment Rules for the post of Supervisor, ICDS. He appeared and passed TPSC selection process and thereafter, he was allowed protection of pay. So, the case of Somen Chakraborty was different from the case of the petitioner. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Respondent No. 3 also filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that the respondent has been unnecessarily arrayed in the writ case and no relief is sought against the respondent. It is also submitted that TPSC conducted an examination for selection of candidates to the post of Blind Educator in which the petitioner also participated as a candidate and he stood first in the selection process. 4. It is also submitted that TPSC conducted an examination for selection of candidates to the post of Blind Educator in which the petitioner also participated as a candidate and he stood first in the selection process. 4. Respondent No. 4 to 6 also filed counter affidavit supporting the contention of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is contended by the respondents that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed directly having all essential qualification to the post of Blind Educator in the Institute for Visually Handicapped having been recommended by the TPSC on 28.08.2002 and 17.08.2000 and respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Blind Educator from the post of Instructor-cum-Warden against a promotional quota on 20.02.2004. The respondents were regularly appointed in the post of Blind Educator before the petitioner's service was regularized and hence, the respondents are senior to the petitioner and their seniority cannot be affected since the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of his past service as an ad-hoc appointee. 5. Following points emerged for consideration and decision:- (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of his service with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of his temporary/ad-hoc appointment dated 19.10.1992? (ii) Whether the petitioner was discriminated against in respect of his service benefits while one year training in education of blind during the period from July, 2002 to May, 2003? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get his seniority and pay protection? 6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is a science graduate with honours in physiology and the State-respondents offered him the post of Blind Educator temporarily in the pay scale of Rs. 1700-65-2220-70-2780-3980 vide Memo dated 29.07.1992 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the petitioner accepted offer and accordingly, he joined the post on 19.10.1992. In Annexure-1, there is no mention that the offer has been given on ad-hoc basis, but it has been clearly mentioned that the offer was purely temporary. Annexure-2 shows that he was entertained against a vacant post of Blind Educator temporarily on ad-hoc basis. 6.1. Admittedly, the petitioner was not having with the requisite qualification as prescribed in item No. 7 of Schedule 1 to the Recruitment Rules. The offer of appointment (Annexure-1) contains a condition that the appointee shall have to undergo any training if required by the Government. 6.1. Admittedly, the petitioner was not having with the requisite qualification as prescribed in item No. 7 of Schedule 1 to the Recruitment Rules. The offer of appointment (Annexure-1) contains a condition that the appointee shall have to undergo any training if required by the Government. Since the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification of one academic year training in the education of blind, it is to be presumed that he was supposed to undergo that training and subject to that he was appointed to the post of Blind Educator. Since the petitioner was consciously appointed by the respondents to the post of Blind Educator without having the requisite qualification of one year training, besides the responsibility of the petitioner, it was also the responsibility of the State-respondents to send the petitioner for the requisite training. The petitioner brought on record that he made several representations for sending him to the training of Blind Educator, but the respondents did not pay any heed. Annexure-6, 6A, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 all are representation of the petitioner for sending him for the training, but the State-respondents did not send him for the said training. Annexure-12 shows that the petitioner's prayer for giving him no objection to undergo the training was rejecting stating that the no objection could not be considered at that time. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner made several attempts to undergo training of Blind Educator while was in temporary/ad-hoc service, but the respondents did not send him pursuant to the approach made by the petitioner. 6.2. Respondents contended that the petitioner was not interested to go for the training at his own cost and therefore, he was continued as an ad-hoc appointee. In support of the contention of the respondents, no evidence placed on record that on any occasion, the order of the respondents regarding training was disobeyed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was all along desirous of undergoing the Blind Educator training as per the requisite requirement, but the State-respondents did not consider his prayer and therefore, he was compelled to continue in the service as a temporary/ad-hoc appointee. 7. The petitioner also contended that while he was in ad-hoc service, he applied for 'no objection certificate' for submitting applications for better job prior to the expiry of his age bar, but the respondents did not allow. 7. The petitioner also contended that while he was in ad-hoc service, he applied for 'no objection certificate' for submitting applications for better job prior to the expiry of his age bar, but the respondents did not allow. He brought on record annexure-27 and 28 in support thereof, which shows that his prayer was forwarded to the respondent No. 2 with the observation of the dealing officer that he was serving satisfactorily, but 'no objection' was not accorded as sought by him. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit simply stated that he was at liberty to go for any other job. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik emphatically submitted that repeated approach of the petitioner for his undergoing training of Blind Educator were not considered by the State-respondents and thereafter, he was compelled to undergo the training at his own cost at Ramkrishna Mission Blind Boys' Academy, Narendrapur, Kolkata after taking leave whereas, such benefits were made available to others during the time of training. The petitioner approached for study leave and that was also turned down. 9. Learned Additional GA has submitted that since the petitioner was on ad-hoc service, he was supposed to go for training at his own cost. The instances given by the petitioner in respect of service benefits while on training are not correct. On behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that one Smt. Sabita Debbarma and another Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) were posted as Blind Educator and thereafter, they were sent for the training. It is brought on record that Smt. Sabita Debbarma and Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) were working in the Education Department of the Government of Tripura and Annexure-30 to the rejoinder affidavit shows that they were sent for the training in the year 1983 and TA, DA was provided to them. Annexure-4 shows that said Smt. Sabita Debbarma and Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) were appointed as Blind Educator in the month of September, 1984. So, they were appointed after their training in the Blind education and not before that. However, it is clear from the documents that they were sent for the training with TA, DA and other service benefits, whilest in the case of the petitioner, he was not given the service benefits while on training and he was asked to go for the training, taking leave and at his own cost (Annexure-15 to the writ petition). However, it is clear from the documents that they were sent for the training with TA, DA and other service benefits, whilest in the case of the petitioner, he was not given the service benefits while on training and he was asked to go for the training, taking leave and at his own cost (Annexure-15 to the writ petition). It is contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 6 was sent for training at State expenses treating the training period as on duty. Annexure-26 shows that respondent No. 6 was appointed as a Blind Educator on 20.02.2004 on promotion from the post of Instructor-cum-Warden. Respondents did not controvert this contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 6 was sent for the Blind Educator training at the State expenses and since it is not controverted, it has to be presumed that respondent No. 6 was sent for the training at the State expenses whereas the petitioner was compelled to go for the training at his own cost taking admissible leave. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was discriminated by the State-respondents in respect of his service benefits while undergoing training during the period from July, 2002 to May, 2003. 10. Vide Memo dated 30.01.2002 (Annexure-15), the petitioner was asked to undergo the Blind Educators training at Ramkrishna Mission Blind Boys' Academy, Narendrapur, Kolkata and this is the only evidence brought on record when the respondents allowed the petitioner to undergo the required training and it shows that he was asked to take leave for the training and that he has to undergo the training at his own cost. It is stated by the petitioner that he ranked first class first in the training examination and he completed his training satisfactorily in September, 2003 and he submitted application on 09.04.2004 for regularizing his service with all service benefits from the date of his initial appointment. It is submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner was in continuous service without break from the date of his joining i.e. 19.10.1992. He served sincerely and with all satisfaction and there is no grievance of the respondents in respect of service rendered by the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner was in continuous service without break from the date of his joining i.e. 19.10.1992. He served sincerely and with all satisfaction and there is no grievance of the respondents in respect of service rendered by the petitioner. So, when the petitioner completed his training course, the respondents were bound to regularize his service immediately thereafter, but the respondents arbitrarily did not do so whereas directed the petitioner to pass through the TPSC selection process. Referring to the Recruitment Rules, learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that the Rule clearly prescribes that consultation of TPSC in making recruitment was not applicable, but the respondents compelled the petitioner to go for the selection process through TPSC and the petitioner having so compelled appeared in the TPSC examination and he stood first. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was regularized by Memo dated 14.09.2006 (Annexure-20 and 21), but the benefit of his first service was not given. He was supposed to be regularized with retrospective effect from the date of his initial appointment on 19.10.1992. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of G.P. Doval and others v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 1527 . Learned Additional GA, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis since he had no requisite qualification. When he acquired requisite qualification, he was asked to pass through the TPSC since the post of Blind Educator is the feeder post of the Principal, Blind Educator. TPSC selection was therefore necessary and the Government took a conscious decision for selection through TPSC. There was nothing wrong in such process of selection. It is also contended by learned Additional GA, Mr. Chakraborty that ad-hoc service is no service in the eye of law for the purpose of seniority and pay protection etc. The petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to get regularization of his service with retrospective effect from the date of his joining on 19.10.1992. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. Banerjee, appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 supporting the contention of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to get pay protection and seniority over the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The respondent Nos. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. Banerjee, appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 supporting the contention of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to get pay protection and seniority over the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were regularly appointed before the petitioner in the substantive post and so, the petitioner being an ad-hoc appointee cannot claim seniority over the respondents. In support of his contention, learned counsel referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Vijay Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2901 and the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and Anr. v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 401. 12. The petitioner was given offer by the respondent No. 2 for the post of Blind Educator temporarily (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). He was given appointment vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition temporarily to the post of Blind Educator on ad-hoc basis with effect from the date of his joining and it is clearly stipulated that he was entertained against the vacant post of Blind Educator under the Directorate. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 2 consciously against a vacant post of Blind Educator temporarily on ad-hoc basis. There is no break in the service of the petitioner from 19.10.1992. The petitioner brought on record that Smt. Sabita Debbarma and Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) were sent for Blind Educator's training with all service benefits and TA, DA. It is also contended in Para. 5 of the writ petition that besides Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami), Sri Sunil Deb, Sri Mantu Das, Sri Sajal Kanti Bhowmik and Sri Amit Kr. Roy were also sent for the training treating them on duty with all benefits of service. The contention that Sri Sunil Deb, Sri Mantu Das, Sri Sajal Kanti Bhowmik and Sri Amit Kr. Roy were also given the service benefits while on training has not been denied or disputed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit and it is simply stated that the teachers, who had come to the department after long service in the Education Department were sent for training for their skill development only. Roy were also given the service benefits while on training has not been denied or disputed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit and it is simply stated that the teachers, who had come to the department after long service in the Education Department were sent for training for their skill development only. So, the case of Smt. Sabita Debbarma and Smt. Mridula Adhikari (Goswami) is different from the case of the petitioner. Those persons mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition were in the Government service in the Education Department as claimed by the respondents. The petitioner was also in service under the respondents may be temporarily or on ad-hoc basis, but it was continuous without any interruption in a particular post with definite pay scale and increment etc. So, the respondents should not have treated the petitioner differently from that of those persons, who also joined the department of the respondents from others department. If they were entitled to all service benefits, there was no reason for the respondents in not allowing the petitioner of such benefits. The case of Sri Sambhu Debnath i.e. respondent No. 6 is quite clear. He was working in the department of the State-respondents as an Instructor-cum-Warden and according to the respondents, he was promoted to the post of Blind Educator on 20.02.2004. He has been given all the benefits of his past service, but in case of the petitioner, such benefits have been refused only on the plea that he was on ad-hoc service. The petitioner also set the example of another Somen Chakraborty, a Supervisor of ICDS, who was also given all pay protection and other service benefits. Respondents contended that service benefits was afforded to Somen Chakraborty since he was already working as a Supervisor of ICDS and appeared through TPSC selection process. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner has been discriminated from his legitimate entitlement of service benefits from the date of his initial appointment. The Supreme Court in the case of G.P. Doval (supra) in Para. 15 of the judgment has held that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list. Para. The Supreme Court in the case of G.P. Doval (supra) in Para. 15 of the judgment has held that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list. Para. 15 of the judgment may be gainfully quoted here, which reads as follows:- 15. Now if there was no binding rule of seniority it is well-settled that length of continuous officiation prescribes a valid principle of seniority. The question is from what date the service is to be reckoned? It was urged that any appointment of a stop-gap nature or pending the selection by Public Service Commission cannot be taken into account for reckoning seniority. In other words, it was urged that to be in the cadre and to enjoy place in the seniority list, the service rendered in a substantive capacity can alone be taken into consideration. We find it difficult to accept this bald and wide submission. Each case will depend upon its facts and circumstances. If a stop-gap appointment is made and the appointee appears before the Public Service Commission when the latter proceeds to select the candidates and is selected, we see no justification for ignoring his past service. At any rate, there is no justification for two persons selected in the same manner being differently treated. That becomes crystal clear from the place assigned in the seniority list to petitioner No. 1 in relation to respondent No. 7. In fact if once a person appointed in a stop-gap arrangement is confirmed in his post by proper selection, his past service has to be given credit and he has to be assigned seniority accordingly unless a rule to the contrary is made. That has not been done in the case of all the petitioners. The error is apparent in the case of petitioner 1 and respondent No. 7. These errors can be multiplied but we consider it unnecessary to do so. In fact a fair rule of seniority should ordinarily take into account the past service if the stop-gap arrangement is followed by confirmation. The error is apparent in the case of petitioner 1 and respondent No. 7. These errors can be multiplied but we consider it unnecessary to do so. In fact a fair rule of seniority should ordinarily take into account the past service if the stop-gap arrangement is followed by confirmation. This view which we are taking is borne out by the decision of this Court in Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P., ( AIR 1981 SC 41 : (1981) 1 SCR 449 ), wherein this Court observed that the principle which has received the sanction of this Court's pronouncement is that 'officiating service in a post for all practical purposes of seniority is as good as service on a regular basis. It may be permissible, within limits for Government to ignore officiating service and count only regular service when claims of seniority come before it, provided the rules in that regard are clear and categorical and do not admit of any ambiguity and cruelly arbitrary cut-off of long years of service does not take place or there is functionally and qualitatively, substantial difference in the service rendered in the two types of posts.' It was said that service rules will have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16. It is thus well-settled that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list. Admittedly, that has not been done and the seniority list is drawn up from the date on which the approval/selection was made by the Public Service Commission in respect of each member of the service, which is clearly violative of Art. 16, and any seniority list drawn up on this invalid basis must be quashed. 13. The decision in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) and Bhupendra Nath Hazarika (supra) referred by learned counsel, Mr. Banerjee appears to be on a distinguishable fact. The principle laid down in those reported cases cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. In the case of Vijay Singh (supra), the person was appointed purely on temporary basis for a fixed period by an authority other than the one, who was competent to make regular appointment to the service. The principle laid down in those reported cases cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. In the case of Vijay Singh (supra), the person was appointed purely on temporary basis for a fixed period by an authority other than the one, who was competent to make regular appointment to the service. In the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika (supra), the recruitment was made dehors the Rules and so, the Apex Court has held that the person appointed should not be given the benefit of the length of the service. In the case at hand, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 2, who was the competent authority, in a vacant post with a definite pay scale as a Blind Educator temporarily on ad-hoc basis and he continued his job without any interruption. He was lacking the qualification of one year training and in the Offer of Appointment, it was mentioned that he was supposed to undergo the training required by the department. He has undergone the training successfully when the department arranged/allowed him for undergoing the training. So, the petitioner was not with any fault of his own for regularization of his service. The principles laid down in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika (supra) wherein the case of Vijay Singh (supra), also referred, therefore, in my considered opinion, cannot be applied in the present case. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to get regularization of his service with effect from the date of his joining i.e. from 19.10.1992. He is also entitled to get seniority, pay protection etc. from the date of his joining i.e. with effect from 19.10.1992. He is further entitled to get all service benefits during the course of his training with effect from July, 2002 to May, 2003. 15. Respondents are accordingly, directed to give the benefits to the petitioner within 45 (forty five) days from today. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost.