Central Council For Res. In Homeopathy vs Bipin Chandra Lakhera & Ors

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

respondent No. 1. As regards the other respondents in

respect of whom service is complete no one has entered

appearance on their behalf so far.

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned

judgment & order dated 24.03.2004 passed by the High Court

of Sikkim in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 542 of 1998.

The facts have been given in the impugned judgment

and order and hence we are not repeating the same here,

except where necessary.

The short question in this Appeal is whether ad

hoc service of respondent No. 1 from 1984 before his

regularisation with effect from 05.01.1996 can be added for

the purpose of seniority. We are of the opinion that it

cannot.

Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was appointed as

Research Assistant (Homeopathy) in the service of the

appellant on

:1:

purely ad hoc basis by order dated 03.02.1984 till

31.03.1984 or till the post is filled on a regular basis

whichever was earlier. This appointment was done without

any regular selection.

It may be noted that respondent No. 1 herein (Writ

petitioner before the High Court) had not applied for

appointment in response to any advertisement issued by the

appellant. In his application respondent No. 1 stated that

"I have come to know through some reliable sources that

there is a post of Research Assistant lying vacant in the

Central Council for Research in Homeopathy." Accordingly,

respondent No. 1 was offered the post on a purely

ad hoc basis vide order dated 03.02.1984 clearly stating

that his appointment was till 31.03.1984 or till a regularly

selected candidate joins, whichever was earlier. Thus, this

appointment was made without following any procedure. The

tenure was extended by the appellant from time to time.

The post of Research Assistant was advertised in

1986 and respondent No. 1 applied for the post and was

called for an interview before a Selection Committee on

29.06.1987 but was not found suitable. However, he was

continued on ad hoc basis in view of an interim

order passed by the High Court in a writ petition.

:2:

The post was again advertised in 1995 for regular

appointment and respondent No. 1 again applied, and this

time he was successful and given regular appointment with

effect from 05.01.1996.

It has been held by this Court in Ch. Narayana Rao

Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 247, and State

of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors.,

(1993) 3 SCC 371, that ad hoc service before regularisation

cannot be counted for seniority.

It was contended by learned counsel for respondent

No. 1 that some others similarly situate have been given

retrospective regularisation. This is not correct. No one

has been given benefit of ad hoc service for the purpose of

seniority. The persons mentioned in the writ petition are

those persons who had been selected earlier, whereas

respondent No. 1 had not been selected. Such persons have

been given seniority only from the date of their regular

appointment after selection.

It has been pointed out in paragraph 17 of the

counter affidavit filed by the Council before the High Court

that these persons were given seniority from the date of

their regular appointment after a regular selection. Thus,

Dr. Gautam Rakshit was appointed on ad hoc basis on

:3:

10.08.1987, but thereafter he faced a regular selection and

was selected and given regular appointment on 12.04.1988.

He has been given seniority from 12.04.1988 and not from

10.08.1987. Similar is the case of Dr. (Miss) I.M. Kumar,

Dr. G.K. Mathew and Dr. Mohan Singh. Hence, their cases are

clearly distinguishable.

In view of the decision of this Court in Ch.

Narayana Rao's case (supra), we allow this Appeal and set

aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and

dismiss the writ petition. No costs.

........................

J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

NEW DELHI; ........................J. APRIL 20, 2011 (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

:4: