http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SODAGAR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      These special  leave petition  have been  filed against the judgement  and  orders  dated  May  27,1996  and  August 20,1996 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court  in the write petition and the Review Petition in Regular Appeal No.191 of 1996 respectively.      The  admitted  position  is  that  the  petitioner  was appointed on  ad had basis to the post of Legal Assistant in the respondent-organisation  . Rule 8 of the Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State  Serve Class-III Rules ,1997 provides as under:      "8. No person shall be appointed to      the service unless he has requisite      qualification  and   experience  as      specified in  column 3  of Appendix      ’B’  to  these  rules  in  case  of      direct appointment  and appointment      by transfer  and those specified in      column 4  of the aforesaid Appendix      in case of appointment by promotion      .      9 (1).  appointment to  the service      shall  be  made  in  the  following      manner namely:-      a)  *    *     *     *      *     *      *      b)   in    the   case    of   legal      Assistants:-      i)       20   percent   by   direct      recruitment; and      ii) 80  percent by  promotion  from      amongst the  Law Graduates  serving      in the  Deptt. including  employees      of the Punjab Roadways on the basis      of merit-cum-seniority; or      iii) by transfer or   deputation of      an official  already in  service of      Government of  India, if a suitable      candidate is  not available  by the      methods mentioned  in  sub  clauses

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    (i) and (ii)."      A reading of Rule 8 would clearly indicate that all Law Graduates  serving   in  the  Department  are  eligible  for consideration of  promotion as Legal Assistants on the basis of merit-cum-seniority  subject to the qualification and the condition mentioned  in the Rules. Rule 9 (1) (b) postulates that 20%  of the  posts of Legal Assistants are reserved for direct recruitment.  Admittedly,   the petitioner came to be appointed as  direct recruit  on ad hoc basis to the post of Legal  Assistant   within  that   quota.  When   the  direct recruitment is  made, the  Government has  no power to relax the conditions  required to  be fulfilled for being eligible for appointment  by direct  recruitment and  to give further promotion to  the petitioner  as Legal  Assistant exercising the power under rule 22 relaxing rules 8 and 9 of the Rules. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, is right in its conclusion  that the  petitioner , having been appointed as Legal  Assistant on  ad hoc basis, could not continue any longer unless  a regular  recruitment was made. a direction, there fore,  was given  to the  respondents to  make regular recruitment and  in the  event of  regular  appointment  not being made  within three  months, the  petitioner would  not continue any  longer after the expiry of three months. Under these circumstances, we do not think that the High Court has committed any  error of  law  in  the  above  interpretation warranting interference.  it is  for the  Government to take appropriate action under the law.      The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.