Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 754 (GAU)

Kevineisienuo v. State of Nagaland

2024-05-27

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

body2024
JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Moa Jamir and Mr. M. Solo for the petitioner. Also heard learned Sr. Government Advocate Ms. S. Mere for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and learned counsel Mr. Akhrieu Chusi for the respondent No. 5. 2. The State Respondents are: (i) The State of Nagaland arrayed as respondent No. 1 and represented by the Secretary to the Government, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima. (ii) The Principal Director to the Government, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima. (iii) The Director, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima. (iv) The Chief Medical Officer, Kohima, Nagaland. (v) Smt. Dzuzievonuo, Office Peon, Under the Establishment of Chief Medical Officer, Kohima, Nagaland arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. 3. The petitioner Smt. Kevineisienuo has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ of like nature against the Office Order No. DHFW-3/117/Kma/Part-II/2018/ 6871-75 dated 04.09.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2 in appointing the respondent No. 5. The petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate direction to the State Respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Office Peon against the retirement of Sri Thenuvicho Angami, presently held by the respondent No. 5. The Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima employee under the establishment of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO for short), Kohima passed the impugned order mentioned above. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were both appointed on ad-hoc basis as Medical Attendant and Office Peon respectively. By Office Order No. DHFW-3/EXT/KMA/VOL-I/08/9054-56, dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland-respondent No. 2 herein, the petitioner was temporarily appointed to the post of Medical Attendant, for 1 year on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. the date of joining the post. The petitioner was posted under the establishment of the CMO-respondent No. 4 herein. 5. By Office Order No. DHFW-3/EXT/KMA/VOL-I/08/9054-56, dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland-respondent No. 2 herein, the petitioner was temporarily appointed to the post of Medical Attendant, for 1 year on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. the date of joining the post. The petitioner was posted under the establishment of the CMO-respondent No. 4 herein. 5. From the date of appointment till the selection of respondent No. 5, the petitioner’s service is described in brief as follows: Office Order Date Post Annexure Duration DHFW-3/EXT/KMA/VOL-I/08/9054-56 28.02.2011 Medical Attendant A 1 year DHFW-3/Gr-IV/CON-EXT/2012-13/8126-28 23.12.2012 Medical Attendant B Extended for 1 year DHFW-3/114/Extn/2012-13/6221-222 16.09.2013 Medical Attendant C Extended for 1 year DHFW-3/Extn/2012-13/2643-45 05.06.2014 Medical Attendant D Extended for 1 year DHFW-3/117/Extn/2015/3287-90 23.06.2015 Medical Attendant E Extended for 1 year DHFW-3/117/Extn/2015/8415-18 14.10.2016 Medical Attendant F Extended for 1 year DHFW-3/117/Extn/2015/9792-96 28.11.2017 Medical Attendant G Extended for 1 year DHFW-3/117/Extn/2015/7215-19 15.10.2018 Medical Attendant H Extended for 1 year DHFW-3/117/Extn/2015 Nil.10.2019 Medical Attendant I One year upto 31.03.2020 6. It is contended that the petitioner after serving for 8 years as Medical Attendant on ad-hoc basis, a post of Peon fell vacant on the retirement of Shri Thenuvicho Angami on 30.04.2019. Against the vacant post, the petitioner submitted an application dated 04.04.2019 to the respondent No. 2 which was forwarded by the respondent No. 4 vide letter No. CMOK-6/2/GRD-IV/APPT/TRANS/KMA/2017-19/146 dated 08.04.2019 to the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-J & K). Instead of considering the application, the respondent No. 2, vide impugned Order No. DHFW-3/117/Kma/Part-II/2018/6871-75 dated 04.09.2019 appointed the respondent No. 5 as the Office Peon under the establishment of CMO at Kohima. It is noteworthy to state that the respondent No. 5 was initially appointed to the post of Peon on ad-hoc basis vide Order No. DHFW-3/117/O/P/Dte/11/3123-27 dated 26.06.2015 under the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima and as such the respondent No. 5 is much junior to the petitioner (Annexure Nos. L & M), as the petitioner was appointed on 28.02.2011. The petitioner who was aggrieved, submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2 against the impugned order dated 04.09.2019 on the department’s failure to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment against the vacant post on the basis of seniority. 7. L & M), as the petitioner was appointed on 28.02.2011. The petitioner who was aggrieved, submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2 against the impugned order dated 04.09.2019 on the department’s failure to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment against the vacant post on the basis of seniority. 7. It is contended that it is not disputed that the respondent No. 5 was appointed as Office Peon on ad-hoc basis on 26.06.2015 by the respondent No. 2 whereas the petitioner was appointed as Medical Attendant on ad-hoc basis by an order dated 28.02.2011. It is further submitted that both the posts of Medical Attendant and Office Peon were on ad-hoc basis and both the posts are Grade-IV posts and thus, in the event of any vacancy arising in the Department, the senior most employee has to be appointed/regularised against any Grade-IV post in terms of the government’s policy for regularisation. However, in the instant case, the petitioner who is the senior most ad-hoc employee in the establishment of CMO, Kohima was not considered for regularisation, but the respondent No. 5 illegally and arbitrarily, in a discriminatory manner was regularised. As the appointment of respondent No. 5 was against the principle of natural justice, such an appointment is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that, it is a well recognised principle of service jurisprudence that any rule of seniority has to satisfy the test of equality of opportunity in public service as enshrined in Article 16 of Constitution of India. It is an equally well recognised canon of service jurisprudence that in absence of any other valid rule for determining inter se seniority of members belonging to the same service, the rule of continuous officiating or the length of service or the date of entering of service of continuous un-interrupted services thereafter would be valid and would satisfy the test of Article 16. 8. It is averred that the respondents have adopted the policy solely to accommodate the respondent No. 5 for reasons best known to them. The State being a model employer ought to have applied its judicious mind before passing the impugned order dated 04.09.2019. However, the discriminatory and arbitrary action of the respondents tantamounts to exploitation of its own citizens by the State. 9. The State being a model employer ought to have applied its judicious mind before passing the impugned order dated 04.09.2019. However, the discriminatory and arbitrary action of the respondents tantamounts to exploitation of its own citizens by the State. 9. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s service is fit to be recognised in terms of Government of Nagaland, Department of Personnel and (Administrative Reforms Branch), Nagaland, Kohima on the Office Memorandum No. AR-5/ASSO/98 dated 20.10.2015 on the subject “Regularisation of Contract/Ad-Hoc appointments against sanctioned post.” The relevant part of the Memorandum is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “As per this Department’s Office Memorandum, contract employees who have completed more than 3 (three) years of continuous service on contract/ad-hoc basis, will be eligible for regularization against sanctioned post and a suitability test should be conducted by the concerned Departments under the Chairmanship of the Head of the Administrative Department with P&AR Department and ATI, Nagaland, Kohima.” 10. Keeping in mind the copious ad-hoc employees in the State, the Government of Nagaland, being a welfare State has time and again formulated several policies for the interest of the employees and the above mentioned OM was formulated laying down policy for regularisation of contract/ad-hoc appointments against sanctioned posts facilitating equal opportunities for the citizens. 11. It is contended that despite rendering 10 years of service to the Department, the petitioner’s application was not considered for regularisation in violation of the provisions of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has thus prayed to set aside and quash the Office Order dated 04.09.2019, appointing the respondent No. 5 instead of the petitioner, against the vacant post earlier held by Thenuvicho Angami. 12. Per contra, all the respondents filed affidavits-in-opposition. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed jointly by respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and a separate affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent No. 5. The respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have not disputed that one medical post of Office Peon became vacant at the CMO’s office at Kohima on superannuation of Sri Thenuvicho Angami, Office Peon who attained superannuation on 30.04.2019. The department then received 10 applications claiming for appointment to the post of the Office Peon at CMO’s office. The respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have not disputed that one medical post of Office Peon became vacant at the CMO’s office at Kohima on superannuation of Sri Thenuvicho Angami, Office Peon who attained superannuation on 30.04.2019. The department then received 10 applications claiming for appointment to the post of the Office Peon at CMO’s office. The respondents considered the matter and the letter dated 21.08.2019 conveyed the approval of the Department for appointment of private respondent No. 5 against the afore-mentioned vacant post. In pursuance to the State Government’s approval letter dated 21.08.2019, the Principal Director vide order dated 04.09.2019 temporarily appointed Smt. Dzuzievonuo (R-5) to the post of the Office Peon at CMO’s office, Kohima against the vacant post. 13. It is submitted by the respondents that the post of Medical Attendant and the post of Office Peon are two distinct designations with distinct assignments, though they fall under the same grade. The allegation that the approval for appointment of respondent No. 5 to the post of Office Peon was not considered on seniority basis is totally misconceived, as the post occupied by the petitioner and the post occupied by respondent No. 5 are totally distinct posts with different designations and assignments. Therefore, the representation dated 21.12.2020 could not be considered (Annexures-1, 2 and 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition). The department had not committed any illegality and are not liable for discrimination in favour of the respondent No. 5. 14. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not the sole candidate who had applied for the vacant post. It is also submitted that with regard to Office Memorandum dated 20.10.2015 this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) 145(K)/2017 has observed that on pursuing the conditions of the OM dated 11.08.2016 read with OM dated 04.08.2008, that the State Government is to consider regularisation of employees who have completed 3 years of continuous service on contract/ad-hoc basis are in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of the State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Subsequently this Court vide order dated 21.02.2019 in WP (C) No. 12(K)/2019 has also observed that there can be no further regularisation or appointment in terms of the said two Office Memorandums mentioned above. Subsequently this Court vide order dated 21.02.2019 in WP (C) No. 12(K)/2019 has also observed that there can be no further regularisation or appointment in terms of the said two Office Memorandums mentioned above. Therefore, in view of the afore- mentioned judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 and the order dated 21.02.2019 the writ petitioner’s service for regularisation cannot be considered (Annexure- 4 & 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition). 15. Thus it has been reiterated that the petitioner’s service does not guarantee extension of service in future and neither the petitioner can claim her right for regularisation or seniority as clearly stated in the common extension order dated 29.04.2020 marked as Annexure-6 of the affidavit-in-opposition. 16. The petitioner has thus failed to make out a case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition ought to be dismissed. 17. The private respondent No. 5 has also contradicted the petition contending inter-alia that when the post of the Office Peon was vacant after retirement of Sri Thenuvicho Angami, she submitted an application to the respondent No. 2 which was forwarded and processed by the office with the rest of the applications. Thereafter she was temporarily appointed as Office Peon at CMO’s office, Kohima against the vacancy vide the impugned order dated 04.09.2019. The respondent has also contended that the petitioner’s submission that being the senior most ad-hoc employee, the petitioner was a deserving candidate for the vacant post of Office Peon is misleading and misconceived inasmuch as there is no seniority list maintained for ad-hoc/contractual employees under the establishment of CMO, Kohima as they are given extension of their service with one - day break of service after every year. Such appointments do not guarantee extension of service in future, neither the right to claim seniority or regularisation. Moreover the petitioner was serving on ad-hoc basis as a Medical Attendant and not as an Office Peon. This respondent has also reiterated that she was initially appointed to the post of Office Peon on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 26.06.2015 and she was thus inducted as an Office Peon after retirement of Sri Thenuvicho Angami. The post of Office Peon and Medical Attendant are two distinct posts and it is misconstrued and misconceived that undue favour was bestowed upon her by the respondent authorities. 18. The post of Office Peon and Medical Attendant are two distinct posts and it is misconstrued and misconceived that undue favour was bestowed upon her by the respondent authorities. 18. The following are the submissions of respondent No. 5 relating to her period of service: Govt. Approval Letter No. Date Post Annexure Duration of Extention HFW(A)MISC/2/41/16-P1/115 29.03.2017 Peon 4 (Affidavit) One year HFW(A)-8/47/2017(PT)/50 14.03.2018 Peon 5 (Affidavit) One year HFW(A)-8/47/2017(Pt)/323 29.11.2018 Peon 6 (Affidavit) One year 19. It has been averred by the respondent No. 5 that no seniority list is maintained for ad-hoc employees under the establishment of the CMO, Kohima and no ad-hoc employee is in continuous service for more than a year to claim any post as senior most employee. It is submitted that the petitioner’s plea of being a senior most employee is totally misleading. It is further contended that the list of applicants for extension for the period between 2021-2022 Grade-IV under the CMO, Kohima reflects that the petitioner was in Serial No. 272. Annexure-7 of the affidavit is the list of applicants. It is submitted that the names of the employees in the common extension orders are merely clubbed together and extended according to the requirement of ad-hoc/contract employees by the Department and listed as area wise and not in order of seniority. A close scrutiny of the common extension orders annexed along with the writ petitions transpires that the names are listed in a random order. Likewise the unblemished career of the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 also had an unblemished career without any adverse remarks on her service record. The respondent No. 5 has prayed to dismiss the petition as the petition is bereft of merits. 20. I have considered the submissions of the Bar with circumspection. The remaining part of the submissions at the Bar will be discussed at the appropriate stage. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis as a Medical Attendant in the year 2011 whereas the respondent No. 5 was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Peon. Admittedly there was no regular selection procedure. The petitioner has submitted that she has been prejudiced by the random appointment of the respondent No. 5 who was junior to her. I have perused the Annexure-A of the petition which is the order of appointment of the petitioner on ad-hoc basis for a period of 1 year. Admittedly there was no regular selection procedure. The petitioner has submitted that she has been prejudiced by the random appointment of the respondent No. 5 who was junior to her. I have perused the Annexure-A of the petition which is the order of appointment of the petitioner on ad-hoc basis for a period of 1 year. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 28.02.2011 w.e.f. 02.04.2012 upto 31.03.2013 whereas the respondent No. 5 was appointed as an Office Peon vide order dated 26.06.2015 on ad-hoc basis. The respondent No. 5 has not denied that the petitioner was senior to her. 21. The learned Government Counsel has submitted that the seniority list is under compilation. The OM dated 20.10.2015 has been set aside. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent authority that appointment by approval of the government of respondent No. 5 was not under challenge. Thus the order of appointment of respondent No. 5 has not been challenged and the writ petition is henceforth not maintainable. 22. Both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 had participated in the process of regularisation of appointment by submitting their applications and it cannot be held that the authorities have showered undue favour towards the respondent No. 5 in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 23. In reply to the submissions of the respondents, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents are absolutely silent as to whether there was any selection process conducted in terms of the constitutional provision for public employment before appointing respondent No. 5. The post of Medical Attendant and Office Peon are not at all two distinct posts because both the posts fall under Grade-IV category and have similar eligibility criteria for appointment and are also interchangeable posts. This Court vide judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 has interfered into the Office Memorandum dated 04.08.2008 and Memorandum dated 11.08.2016 while disposing the writ petitions being WP (C) No. 145(K) of 2017. 24. In the instant case, the petitioner has not assailed the OM dated 20.10.2015 as the present petitioner is seeking regularisation of her service. 25. It has been observed by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2018 in connection with WP (C) No. 145(K) of 2017 that: “They shall also have to implead all persons whose right's may be affected by the petitions. 25. It has been observed by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2018 in connection with WP (C) No. 145(K) of 2017 that: “They shall also have to implead all persons whose right's may be affected by the petitions. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the present petition is not maintainable in its present form. The State respondents should not regularize any person if he has completed only 3 years of continuous service on contract/ad-hoc basis in terms of the O.M. dated 11.08.2016 and the O.M. dated 04.08.2008. The petitioners are, however given the liberty to make a fresh challenge to the appointments of the impleaded respondents and other persons as per law, as the present writ petition has not been dismissed on merit, but only on the issue of maintainability. With regard to the contention of the respondents that the issues that had been settled vide the Order dated 05.08.2016 passed in PIL No. 11(K)/15 cannot be re-opened by the petitioners, as the Order dated 05.08.2016 passed in PIL No. 11(K)/15 has attained finality, this Court finds that the Order dated 05.08.2016 passed in PIL No. 11(K)/15 can at best, be applicable to the petitioner no. 1 only and not to the other petitioners.” 26. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that vide order dated 21.02.2019 in WP (C) No. 12(K) of 2019, the OM dated 04.08.2008 and OM dated 11.08.2016 have already been held to be unconstitutional by this Court as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 27. The petitioners have claimed through Para 10 of the petition that her service is fit to be regularised in terms of the Government of Nagaland, (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Administrative and Reforms Branch) Nagaland, OM No. AR/5/ASSO/98 dated 20.10.2015 on the subject “Regularisation of Contract/Ad-Hoc appointments against sanctioned post.” The relevant part of the OM (Annexure-O) is reproduced herein-below: “OFFICE MEMORANDUM Dated Kohima, the 20th October, 2015. Subject: Regularisation of Contract/Ad-Hoc appointments against sanctioned post. Subject: Regularisation of Contract/Ad-Hoc appointments against sanctioned post. As per this Department's Office Memorandum of even number dated 04.08.2008, contract employees who have completed more than 3 (three) years of continuous service on contract/at-hoc basis, will be eligible for regularisation against sanctioned post and a suitability test should be conducted by the concerned Departments under the Chairmanship of the Head of the Administrative Department with representatives from P&AR Department and ATI, Nagaland, Kohima. 2. It has been decided that the proposal for holding of suitability test by the respective Department will be first screened by P&AR Department to ascertain whether the contract appointment sought to be regularised has been made, and extended, following the proper procedure, including necessary clearances and approvals, as prescribed vide OM. No. AR-5/ASSO-98 dated 26-02-2001. Suitability test will be permitted only for cases in which proper procedure has been followed. 3. All Departments having contract/ad-hoc employees shall consolidate and submit the details of the contract/ad-hoc employees to the P&AR Department with necessary documents, viz. first appointment order, extension order, subsequent extension orders, and prior clearances of NPSC and the P&AR Department etc., as applicable, to enable screening of proposal of conducting suitability test. Sd/- PANKAJ KUMAR Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland.” 28. It has already been held by this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 in connection with WP (C) No. 145(K)/2017 and order dated 21.02.2019 in connection with WP (C) No. 12(K)/2019 that the OM dated 11.08.2016 and OM dated 04.08.2008 should not be adhered to. This renders the OM dated 20.10.2015 otiose. Much reliance has been placed on the OM dated 20.10.2015 by the petitioner. When the OM dated 04.08.2008 which forms the basis of the OM dated 20.10.2015 has been declared as unconstitutional, the OM dated 20.10.2015 is thus non est and void. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that there was no violation of Article 16 of the Constitution cannot be ignored. Further the submission on behalf of the respondents that the ad-hoc or the contract employees were not in continuous service also cannot be ignored. During each extension there was a break of service for one day and thereafter the contract of the employees were extended for each succeeding year. Further the submission on behalf of the respondents that the ad-hoc or the contract employees were not in continuous service also cannot be ignored. During each extension there was a break of service for one day and thereafter the contract of the employees were extended for each succeeding year. Nevertheless the well recognised cannon of service jurisprudence demands that rule of seniority has to satisfy test of equality of opportunity in public service as enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India. A balance has to be struck relating to the internal policies of appointment to a regularised post or regularisation of an ad-hoc employee. 29. I have considered the submissions that the names of the contractual/ad-hoc employees were clubbed together in a random manner. The Annexure-7 shows that the petitioner’s name was at serial No. 272 and the date of joining of the incumbents as shown in the column reflects that the petitioner’s name is shown to be above some of her seniors. This argument on behalf of the respondent can be ignored as it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is senior to the respondent as she had joined earlier. The respondents tried to create a distinction between the contractual employment of the petitioner vis-a-vis the employment of the respondent No. 5 by stating that the respondent was appointed as Office Peon and she was the next suitable candidate for regularisation as office Peon after the vacancy created by retirement of Sri Thenuvicho Angami. 30. I would like to reiterate that this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 in WP (C) No. 145(K) of 2017 has held that pursuing conditions of OM dated 11.08.2016 and OM dated 04.08.2008 for regularisation of employees who have completed 3 years of continuous service on contract/ad-hoc basis are in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The OM No. AR-5/ASSO/98 dated 20.10.2015 which is based on the OM dated 04.08.2008 is also non est and void. In the instant case, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 have participated in the process of regularisation of appointment by submitting their applications. The OM No. AR-5/ASSO/98 dated 20.10.2015 which is based on the OM dated 04.08.2008 is also non est and void. In the instant case, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 have participated in the process of regularisation of appointment by submitting their applications. The petitioner has not specifically pointed out before this Court the selection procedure adopted to pass the allegedly discriminatory order, appointing the respondent No. 5 as the Office Peon. It is not clear whether the vacant post was filled up as per the observation of Para-53 of Uma Devi’s case (supra). It is not clear whether the process of one time regularisation and appointment of ad-hoc post has been exhausted by the department. The respondent has been serving for several years now, since her appointment, vide impugned order dated 04.09.2019. Except the allegation of bypassing seniority and superseding the petitioner, there is no allegation against the respondents by the petitioner in what manner she has been prejudiced. The allegation of the petitioner that undue favour was bestowed upon respondent No. 5 has been adequately refuted by the respondents. Except notification dated 20.10.2015, no scheme for regularisation or internal policies for regularisation of the respondent authorities have been brought to the fore, by the petitioner to establish her case of discriminatory approach by the respondents. It is apparent that 10 participants submitted their applications. The internal policies adopted by the respondents for regularisation of respondent No. 5 is also not before this Court. The petitioner has not brought out a clear case to substantiate the discriminatory approach of the respondent authorities and to prove how she was prejudiced. It is also apt to mention at this juncture that the order of appointment of respondent No. 5 has not been challenged, nor has the petitioner prayed to set aside the order of appointment of respondent No. 5. There is no direct allegation that no suitability test was conducted for regularization of respondent No. 5 against a sanctioned post. 31. The respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have stated that as the Office Memorandum dated 04.08.2008 is non est and void, this renders the Office Memorandum dated 20.10.2015 otiose. If that be so, then how can the respondent No. 5’s appointment be considered as valid appointment? 32. 31. The respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have stated that as the Office Memorandum dated 04.08.2008 is non est and void, this renders the Office Memorandum dated 20.10.2015 otiose. If that be so, then how can the respondent No. 5’s appointment be considered as valid appointment? 32. The allegations of discriminatory approach of the respondent authorities in selecting the respondent No. 5 was opaque, and the onus was on the petitioner to point out in what manner she was prejudiced, but, on the contrary, the petitioner herself has asked as to what procedure was adopted for selection of respondent No. 5. The respondents have not denied that the petitioner was rendering her services as ad-hoc/contractual employee since 2011, whereas the respondent No. 5 joined much later, i.e. in the year 2015. However, the respondents have vehemently denied that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 5. The respondents have emphasized that the petitioner’s service does not guarantee extension of service in future, neither she can claim her right for regularization or seniority due to the service break of one day, prior to every extension order on the basis of which, the petitioner was continuing her service on ad-hoc/contractual basis. 33. The submission of the learned Government Counsel that the seniority list of such employees is under compilation, is also taken note of. The petitioner has also earlier participated in the process of regularization of services against a vacant post. I believe equity will prevail if the petitioner’s prayer for regularization is taken up for consideration by the respondents. 34. In the wake of my foregoing discussions, it is thus held that this petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner who is aggrieved on being allegedly superseded by respondent No. 5 is at liberty to take part in any regularization procedure, if any post falls vacant, or if any sanctioned post is created. 35. Petition is dismissed with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s appointment against a sanctioned post as per the terms and policies of the Government. 36. No order as to costs.