http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: Y.H. PAWAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BHARUCHA S.P. (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   521        1996 SCALE  (3)508

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      Appellant was  appointed as  a Class  III employee on A basis on  March 22, 1960, after his name was called from the Employment Exchange, in the Directorate of Public Health. In 1960, the  Ministerial Recruitment Rules had come into force but the  appellant was  not regularized  in the  service. He came to  be regularized  on May 6, 1968 giving him seniority with effect  from the  date bn which the selection was made. The appellant  challenged the  action in O.A. No. 1007/93 in the Karnataka  Administrative Tribunal which by the impugned order dated  April 30,  1993 dismissed the application. Thus this appeal by special leave.      It is  contended by  learned counsel  for the appellant that no  statutory rules  were  in  existence  when  he  was appointed. government issued orders that if the appointments were made  by the  government or  with the  sanction of  the Government the  appointments would  be regular appointments. Therefore, he  must be  deemed to  have  been  appointed  on regular  basis   with  effect   from  the  initial  date  of appointment. His seniority has thus to be reckoned from that date. It is contended, on the other hand, by learned counsel for the  respondents that  at the  relevant time  no regular recruitment was  sought to  be made.  Local candidates  were appointed on ad hoc basis. After the statutory Rules came to be made,  their services  have been  regularized with effect from the  date of coming into force of the Rules. The action taken by  the Government  was upheld  by the  Administrative Tribunal  following  decision  in  Gurulingaswamy  v.  State Application No.663  of 1989]  which  was  followed  in  this petition. Therefore,  when the  earlier candidates have been regularized according  to the statutory Rules, the appellant cannot claim higher rank.      It  is   contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

appellant that  in view  of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of  this Court in Direct Recruit  Class II Engineering Officers Association  v. State of Maharashtra &  Ors.[(1990) 2 SCC  715] where appointment was made on regular basis, the seniority was  required to  be determined  with effect  from the initial  date of  appointment. We  find no  force in the contentions. As  seen the  appointments are  made on  ad hoc basis without conducting any competitive examination. As and when vacancy  had arisen  local candidates  were called from Employment  Exchange  and  were  appointed.  Therefore,  the appointments cannot  be considered  to  have  been  made  on regular basis.  When the  Rules came  to be  made,  all  the appointments are  sought to  be  regularized.  The  sanction given by  the Government  for such an appointment is only to enable the  candidates to  continue till the statutory Rules are made to regularize the services.      This Court  in Excise  Commissioner Karnataka & Anr. v. V.  Sreekanta   [(1993)  Supp.   3  SCC   53],  in   similar circumstances  had   considered  the   effect  of   such  an appointment in paragraph 14 which reads thus:      "After    giving     our    anxious      consideration  to   the  respective      contention  of   the   parties   it      appears  to   us  that   the   writ      petitioned   respondent,   Sri   V.      Sreekanta, was appointed as a local      candidate    through     Employment      Exchange in  view of  the  specific      sanction of the government for such      ad hoc  appointment. The  terms  of      appointment  in   the  context   of      sanction of  the said  posts by the      Government, in  our  view,  clearly      demonstrates that  such appointment      of the  said respondent  and  other      employees  in   1968  was   ad  hoc      appointment    given    to    local      candidates being  sponsored by  the      local Employment  Exchange. It  was      only on  October 26, 1971, the said      respondent became  eligible  to  be      recruited in  the  said  Class  III      post,  and   such  appointment   or      regularization  of   his   ad   hoc      appointment   was   made   possible      because of  the framing of the said      Special  Rules  of  Recruitment  in      1970. In  our view,  Mr.  Narasimha      Murthy   is    justified   in   his      submission that  the respondent was      not  entitled  to  claim  seniority      from  the   date  of   his  initial      appointment on  ad hoc basis but he      was   only    entitled   to   claim      seniority  from  the  date  of  his      subsequent      appointment      or      regularization   under   the   said      Special  Rules  of  Recruitment  in      1970. It  appears to  us that under      Rule 3 of the said Special Rules of      Recruitment    of     1970,     the      respondent,  having  possessed  the      minimum  qualifications  prescribed      be  the   said  Special   Rules  of      Recruitment  for   recruitment   to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    Class  III   posts  and   the  said      respondent having been appointed on      or after January 1, 1965 as a local      candidate to  a Class  III post and      having put  in a continuous service      of one  year prior  to  October  1,      1970, was  eligible to be appointed      under the  said  Special  Rules  of      Recruitment and  the respondent was      given such  appointment with effect      from October  26,  1971  under  the      said Special  Rules of  Recruitment      of 1970.  The said  respondent  was      entitled to  be treated  as  direct      recruit  properly  made  under  the      said Special  Rules  of  1970  only      from  October   26,  1971  and  the      service rendered  by him  prior  to      the said date was only on the basis      of ad  hoc employment  not made  in      accordance  with   the   rules   of      recruitment.   In   the   aforesaid      circumstances, the  decision of the      division  Bench  of  the  Karnataka      High Court  appears to  be  clearly      erroneous and we have no hesitation      in setting  aside the same. Learned      Single Bench  of the Karnataka High      Court  in  our  view,  has  rightly      dismissed the  writ petition and we      affirm  the   said  decision.   The      appeal   is   accordingly   allowed      without any order as to costs."      In  that   view  of   the  matter,  we  hold  that  the appointment of  the appellant is only an ad hoc appointment. Accordingly, his  seniority is  to be determined with effect from the date on which the statutory Rules came into force.      the appeal is  dismissed accordingly. No costs.