STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusVIJAY SINGH AND ORS.

                        [2012] 10 S.C.R. 356


A                STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
                                  v.
                      VIJAY SINGH AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 5947 of 2012)
                         AUGUST 22, 2012
B
             [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
                     MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

        Service Law - Seniority - Ad-hoc appointment of
C respondents as Masters in different subjects I Physical
  Training Instructor I Hindi Teacher - Subsequently
  regularized - After regularization, claim of respondents that
  the period of ad-hoc service be counted towards seniority -
  Claim not accepted by the department - Respondents filed
D writ petition - High Court held that seniority of the respondents
  be fixed by taking into account their ad hoc service -
  Justification - Held: Not justified - Till framing of the 1998
  Rules, appointments to the posts of Masters and Teachers
  were governed by the 1995 Rules - In terms of r. 3 of the 1955
E Rules, only the Director was competent to make appointments
  and after the Selection Board was constituted vide Notification
  dated 28-1-1970, the Director could make appointment only
  on recommendation of the Board - Further in terms of r. 8 of
  the 1955 Rules, .every appointee was required to be placed
F on probation - Respondents were neither appointed by the
  Director (the competent authority) on the recommendations
  of the Board nor they were placed on probation - They were
  appointed on purely ad hoc basis without following the
  procedure prescribed for regular appointment - Mere fact that
  the ad hoc appointments of respondents were preceded by
G sending requisitions to the Employment Exchanges and
  recommendations by the District Selection Committee cannot
  lead to an inference that they were appointed on regular basis
  - Further, in terms of r. 9 of the 1955 Rules, inter se seniority

H                                356
   STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                 357
                  AND ORS.
was required to be determined by the dates of confirmation         A
while in terms of r. 11 of the 1998 Rules inter se seniority was
to be determined by the length of continuous service on the
post - Respondents were appointed on purely ad hoc basis
and continued to serve as such till regularization of their
service - Therefore, their seniority could not be fixed either     B
ulr. 9 of the 1955 Rules or r. 11 of the 1998 Rules by counting
their service from the date of their initial ad hoc appointments
- Punjab Educational Service, Class Ill, School Cadre Rules,
1955 - rr. 3, 8 and 9 - Haryana State Education School Cadre
(Group-CJ Service Rules, 1998 - r.11.                              c
     The respondents were appointed as - Masters in the
subjects of Science, Maths and Social Studies I Physical
Training Instructor I Hindi Teacher purely on ad hoc basis
between 1994 and 1996 by the District Education
Officers. In furtherance of the policy decision taken by the       D
State Government, the services of the respondents were
regularized w.e.f. 1-10-2003. After regularization of their
services, the respondents claimed that the period of ad-
h oc service should be counted towards seniority
because they were recruited on the basis of selection              E
made by the District Selection Committee from among the
candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges.
The department did not accept their plea and in the
provisional gradation list of the Haryana Education
Service Class Ill, their names were shown below those              F
who were appointed on regular basis prior to 1-10-2003.

    The respondents challenged the provisional
gradation list in a Writ Petition on the ground that the
same was discriminatory. In response, the appellants               G
pleaded that the Provisional Gradation List was prepared
in accordance with Rule 11 of the Haryana State
Education School Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998
and the service rendered by the respondents before
regularization cannot be taken into consideration for the          H
purpose of fixation of seniority. The High Court held that
    358      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A the seniority of the respondents be fixed by taking into
  account their ad hoc service and, therefore, the instant
  appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
B         HELD: 1.1. Till the framing of the Haryana State
    Education School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998,
    the appointments to the posts of Masters and Teachers
    were governed by the Punjab Educational Service, Class
    Ill, School Cadre Rules, 1955. [Para 11] [376-C]
c
       1.2. A reading of order dated 16.10.1995 issued by
  District Education Officer, Panipat makes it crystal clear
  that even though respondent No.1 was appointed as
  Science Master on the recommendations of the District
0 Level Committee, his appointment was purely ad hoc with
  a tenure of six months or till the availability of a candidate
  for regular appointment, whichever was earlier. The other
  respondents were appointed in the same manner with
  similar stipulation. The reason why the respondents were
E appointed on purely ad-hoc basis is not far to seek. The
  concerned District Education Officers did. send
  requisitions to the Employment Exchanges and
  appointments were made on the recommendations of the
  District Level Committee but all this was not in
  consonance with the mandate of the 1955 Rules and
F Notifications dated 28.1.1970 and 29.6.1973. [Para 15]
  [378-C-F]
      1.3. In terms of Rule 3 of the 1955 Rules, only the
  Director was competent to make appointments on the
G posts to which those rules were applicable with the
  exception that Divisional lnspector/lnspectorass of
  School or the Principals of Government Colleges could
  make temporary or officiating appointments on certain
  posts for a maximum period of three months. After the
H Subordinate Services Selection Board was constituted
  STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH             359
                 AND ORS.
vide Notification dated 28.1.1970, the Director could make    A
appointment only on the recommendation of the Board
unless the State Government was to issue notification
under proviso to Clause 6 of Notification dated 29.6.1973.
In terms of Rule 8 of the 1955 Rules, every person
appointed by direct recruitment was required to be            B
placed on probation for a period .of one year. The
respondents were neither appointed by the Director on
the recommendations of the Board nor they were placed
on probation. As a matter of fact, they were appointed on
purely ad hoc basis without following the procedure           c
prescribed for regular appointment. Therefore, the mere
fact \hat the ad hoc api:-ointments of the respondents
were preceded by sending requisitions to the
Employment Exchanges and recommendations by the
District Selection Committee cannot lead to an inference      D
that they were appointed on regular basis. [Para 15) [378-
F-H; 379-A-C]
    1.4. The High Court overlooked the fact that the
respondents were neither appointed by the competent
authority on the recommendations made by the Board            E
nor they were placed on probation. Therefore, the
conclusion recorded by the High Court that the
respondents' initial appointments were regular and,
therefore, ad hoc service was liable to be counted for the
purpose of fixation of seniority is legally unsustainable.    F
[Para 16) [379-E-F]

    1.5. Further, in terms of Rule 9 of the 1955 Rules, the
seniority inter se of members of the service holding the
same class of posts and in the same/identical grades of       G
pay is required to be determined by the dates of their
confirmation. Rule 11 of the 1998 Rules lays down that
seniority inter se of members of the service shall be
determined by the length of continuous service on any
post. The respondents were appointed on purely ad hoc
basis for six months and they continued to serve as ad        H
    360      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A hoc Masters, Physical Training Instructor and Hindi
  Teacher till the regularization of their service w.e.f.
  1.10.2003. Therefore, their seniority could not be fixed
  either under Rule 9 of the 1955 Rules or Rule 11 of the
  1998 Rules by counting their service from the date of
8 initial appointments. [Para 17] [379-G-H; 380-A-B]

         2. In cases where recruitment and conditions of
    service including seniority are regulated by the law
    enacted by Parliament or the State Legislature or the rules
    framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the general
C   proposition laid down in any judgment cannot be applied
    de hors the relevant statutory provisions and dispute
    relating to seniority has to be resolved keeping in view
    such provisions. No proposition of law laid down in any
    judgment that a person who is appointed on purely ad
D   hoc basis for a fixed period by an authority other than the
    one who is competent to make regular appointment to the
    service and such appointment is not made by the
    specified recruiting agency is entitled to have his ad hoc
    service counted for the purpose of fixation of seniority.
E   Therefore, the respondents, who were appointed as
    Masters in different subjects, Physical Training Instructor
    and Hindi Teacher on purely ad hoc basis without
    following the procedure prescribed under the 1955 Rules
    are not entitled to have their seniority fixed on the basis
F   of total length of service. As a corollary to this, it is held
    that the direction given by the High Court for refixation
    of the respondents' seniority by counting the ad hoc
    service cannot be approved. [Paras 18, 24] [380-C-D;
    387-A-D]
G
       Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association
  v. State of Maharashtra and others (1990) 2 SCC 715: 1990
  (2) SCR 900; State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath (1993) 3
  SCC 371: 1993 (2) SCR 919; M.K. Shanmugan v. U.0.1.
  (2000) 4 SCC 476: 2000 (3) SCR 554; State of Haryana v.
H Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and another (2000)
  STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                  361
                 AND ORS.
8 SCC 4: 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 322 and Dr. Chandra Prakash          A
v. State of U.P. (2002) 10 sec 710: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR
574 - referred to.

    Rudra Kumar Sain and others v. Union of India & others
(2000) 8 SCC 25: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 and S. Sumyan            B
and others v. Umi Niri & others (2010) 6 SCC 791: 2010 (4)
SCR 829 - cited.

                     Case Law Reference:
   1990 (2) SCR 900             referred to    Paras 5,7,         c
                                               14,19
   2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 574      referred to    Paras 7,9,
                                               14,23
   1993 (2) SCR 919             referred to    Paras 9, 20        D
  2000 (3) SCR 554              referred to    Paras 9, 21
   2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 573      cited          Para 9
   2010 (4) SCR 829             cited          Para 9
                                                                  E
   2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 322      referred to    Para 22
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5947 of 2012.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 18.12.2008 of the High        F
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
No. 2409 of 2008.
    Neeraj K. Jain, Anubha Agarwal, N.N.S. Rana, Pratham
Kant, Naresh Bakshi for the Appellants.
                                                                  G
    P.S. Patwalia, Rajat Singh, A. Venayagam Balan, Ajay
Singh Chauhan for the Respondents.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted.                            H
    362       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A      2. On being selected by the District Level Committee
  which had considered the candidature of those sponsored by
  the Employment Exchanges, respondent Nos.1 to 13 were
  appointed as Masters in the subjects of Science, Maths and
  Social Studies, respondent No.14 was appointed as Physical
B Training Instructor and respondent No.15 was appointed as
  Hindi Teacher purely on ad hoc basis between 1994 and 1996
  by the District Education Officers. The relevant portions of one
  such order issued on 16.10.1995 are reproduced below:
           "OFFICE OF THE DISTT. EDUCATION OFFICER,
c          PANIPAT
          Order No.E-1/95/3515-65          Dated Panipat 16.10.1995
       On the recommendation of the Distt. Level Committee, the
  following candidates are hereby appointed purely on ad hoc
D basis as Master/Mistresses in the subject noted against them
  in the Haryana Education Service Non Gazetted Class II
  (School cadre) Men/Women branch (as the case may be) w.e.f.
  the they join their duty in the institution indicated against their
  names in the grade of Rs.1400-2600 plus usual allowances
E sanctioned by the Haryana Government from time to time on
  the following terms and conditions:-


    SI.No              Name and            Place of         Remarks
F                      address of          posting
                       the candidate

    S.S. Master (Male}, General CategoN

G
    j1 to 3      I   xxxxxx
                                       I   xxxxxxx          xxxxxxx

    S,S. Master (Male} B.C. CategoN
    11.
                I    xxxxxx
                                       I   xxxxxxx          xxxxxxx

H
     STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                    363
             AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
S.S. Master. S.C. Category <Male) Block A                              A
                                                      XXlOOOOC


S.S. Master. Block B

            I xxxxxx                XXlOOOOC          XXlOOOOC         B

S.S. Master Male. ESM
11 & 2.     I xxxxxx                XXlOOOOC
                                               ·· 1
                                                 •
                                                      XXlOOOOC

S.S. Mistress General Category
                                                                       c
h    to 3   I xxxxxx            I   xxxxxxx           XlOOOOOC

S.S. Mistress Category Scheduled Caste. Block A.

I
1.          I xxxxxx            I   xxxxxxx     I     xxxxxxx
                                                                       D


Science Master Male General Cateaorv

1.            Vijay Singh s/o       G.S.S.S.          Against
              Om Parkash            Mandi             vacancy          E
              V.P.O. Palri
              (Panipat)

2&3           xxxxxxx               xxxxxxx           xxxxxxx
                                                                       F
Science Mistress General Category

I
1 & 2.      I xxxxxx            I   xxxxxxx

Math Master General Category Male                                      G

I
1 and 2.    I xxxxxx            I   xxxxxxx
Math Mistress General Category

                                                                       H
    364        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2012] 10 S.C.R.


A   Terms & Conditions:

          1.    The above appointments are purely on ad hoc basis
                for six months or till the candidates are available for
                regular appointment whichever is earlier. Their
                services are liable to be terminated without
8
                assigning any reason or notice at any time.

                 2 to 6     xx    xx          xx

       3. In furtherance of the policy decision taken by the State
c Government in the light of the judgment of the High Court in
  Hassan Mohd. v. State of Haryana 2004 (2) SCT 505, the
  services of the respondents were regularized w.e.f. 1.10.2003.
  The opening paragraph and clause 5 of the terms and
  conditions embodied in order dated 3.8.2004/12.8.2004
D passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana for
  regularization of a number of employees of District Ambala
  including respondent No.12 Prem Kumar are extracted below:

          "OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR                     SECONDARY
          EDUCATION HARYANA
E
                                 CHANDIGARH

          ORDER No. 2/4-2004-E-V (5) DATED CHANDIGARH
          THE
F         03.08.2004

          In pursuance of the decision contained in the Haryana Govt.
          letter No.6/9/03-IGS-I dated 03.10.2003, the following
          Master/Mistress who were appointed on ad hoc/
G         contractual basis and have completed three years service
          upto 30.09.2003 and were in service on that date are
          hereby appointed as officiating Masters/Mistress in HES-
          111 School Cadre {Men's Branch) in the grade of Rs.5500-
          9000 {pre-revised) plus usual allowances as sanctioned
          by the Haryana Government from time to time w.e.f.
H
   STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                          365
           AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
    01.10.2003 and posted at present place against vacant                  A
    posts as per following terms and conditions:-

    Sr. No~    Name of the office and              Date of
               present place of posting            appointment

    Sh/Smt. Masters /Mistress Distt. Ambala                                B

    1. to 16. xxxxx                 xxxxxx              )()()()()(


    Sh/Smt. Master/Mistress Distt. Ambala.
    17. to 19 xxxxxxx               )()()()()()(        )()()()()(
                                                                           c
    20.       Prem Kumar,          GHS Kalpi        01.03.1995
    21. to 27. xxxxx                )()()()()()(


    Sh/Smt. Science Master /Mistress Distt. Ambala.                        D
    29. to 38. xxxxxxx              xxxxxx
    1 to 4    xx                    xx                  xx
    5. They are put on probation for a period of two years in              E
    the first instance from the date he joined his duty. His result
    will be particularly taken into consideration while assessing
    his performance, if in the option of the appointing authority
    his work and conduct has not been found satisfactory
    during probation period, this period is liable to be                   F
    extended provided that the total period of probation
    including extension, if any, shall exceed 3 years or his
    service will be dispensed with.

    6 to 9     xx                   xx                    xx"
                                                                           G
     4. After regularization of their services, the respondents
submitted representations through their association and
claimed that the period of ad-hoc service should be counted
towards seniority because they were recruited on the basis of
selection made by the District Selection Committee from                    H
    366     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012) 10 S.C.R.

A among the candidates sponsored by the Employmen~
  Exchanges. The department did not accept their· plea and in
  the provisional gradation list of the Haryana Education Service
  Class Ill,· their names were shown below those who were
  appointed on regular basis prior to 1.10.2003.
B
          5. The respondents challenged the provisional gradation
    list in Civil Writ Petition No.2409/2008 on the ground that the
    same was discriminatory and prayed that in view of the
    judgment of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering
     Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and others
c   (1990) 2 sec 715, their seniority be fixed by taking into
    consideration the total length of service including the ad-hoc
    service, and until then, no one should be promoted to the post
    of lecturer.
D      6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants,
  it was pleaded that the Provisional Gradation List was prepared
  in accordance with Rule 11 of the Haryana State Education
  School Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 (for short, 'the
  1998 Rules') and the service rendered by the respondents
E before regularization cannot be taken into consideration for the
  purpose of fixation of seniority.
       7. The Division Bench of the High Court relied upon the
  judgments in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers'
F Association v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra),
  Dr.Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P. (2002) 10 SCC 710, and
  order dated 4.7.2008 passed in C.W.P.No.7862/2006,
  Hanumant Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, and
  declared that the seniority of the respondents be fixed by taking
  into account their ad hoc service and, accordingly, they should
G be considered for promotion to the posts of lecturer.
      8. Shri Neeraj Jain, learned senior counsel for the
  appellants referred to the provisions of the Punjab Educational
  Service, Class Ill, School Cadre Rules, 1955 (for short, 'the
H 1955 Rules'), as applicable to the State of Haryana, the 1998
  STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                   367
          AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
 Rules, Notification dated 28.1.1970 issued by the Governor of       A
 Haryana under Article 309 of the Constitution for creation of the
 Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short, 'the Board')
 as also Notification dated 29.6.1973, by which Clause 6 of the
 earlier notification was substituted, and argued that even though
the respondents were appointed as Masters in different subjects      B
 and Physical Training Instructor and Hindi Teacher against the
 sanctioned posts after being sponsored by Employment
 Exchanges and on being recommended by the District
 Selection Committee, their seniority cannot be fixed on the
 basis of total length of service because their appointments were    c
purely ad hoc and were subject to the availability of the
candidates selected for regular appointment. Shri Jain pointed
out that under the 1955 Rules, the Director of Education and
not the District Education Officer was competent to make
appointment on the posts of Masters and argued that the              D
services rendered by the respondents on the basis of ad hoc
appointments made by the District Education Officers cannot
be clubbed with post regularization service for the purpose of
determination of seniority. Learned senior counsel further
argued that initial appointments of the respondents cannot t:;e      E
treated as regular because the same were not made on the
recommendations of the Board constituted vide Notification
dated 28.1.1970. Shri Jain pointed out that under the 1998
Rules also the appointing authority for the posts of Masters/
Mistresses is the Joint Director of Schools and not the District
Education Officer and argued that the High Court committed           F
serious error by directing fixation of the seniority of the
respondents by counting their ad hoc service ignoring that their
initial appointments were not made by the competent authority
on the recommendations of the Board.
                                                                     G
    9. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the
respondents supported the direction given by the High Court
and argued that the respondents are entitled to have their
seniority fixed on the basis of total length of service because
they were initially appointed after following the procedure          H
    368      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012) 10 S.C.R.


A prescribed for regular recruitment. Shri Patwalia emphasized
  that the posts against which the respondents were appointed
  between 1994 and 1996 were duly sanctioned and the
  appointments were made by the District Education Officers
  from among the candidates who were sponsored by the
B Employment Exchanges and whose names were
  recommended by the District Selection Committees. Learned
  senior counsel argued that the use of phrase 'ad hoc' in the
  orders issued by the District Education Officers is not
  conclusive and the High Court rightly treated the respondents'
c initial appointment as regular for the purpose of fixation of
  seniority. Shri Patwalia relied upon the principles laid down by
  the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering
  Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and others
  (supra), and the judgments in State of West Bengal v. Aghore
D Nath (1993) 3 SCC 371, M.K. Shanmugan v. U.0.1. (2000) 4
  SCC 476, Rudra Kumar Sain and others v. Union of India &
  others, (2000) 8 SCC 25, Dr. Chandra Prakash v. State of
   U.P. (supra) and S. Sumyan and others v. Limi Niri & others,
  (201 O) 6 sec 791, and argued that once the ad hoc
  appointments of the respondents were regularized, there could
E be no justification to exclude their past service for the purpose
  of fixation of seniority.

       10. We have considered the respective submissions.
  Rules 2(a), (e), 3, 8 and 9 of the 1955 Rules, which were
F applicable to the State of Haryana till the enactment of the 1998
  Rules, Rules 6, 10 and 11 of the 1998 Rules and the relevant
  extracts of Notifications dated 28.1.1970 and 29.6.1973 issued
  by the Governor of Haryana under Article 309 of the
  Constitution, which have bearing on the decision of this appeal,
G are reproduced below:

          THE 1955 RULES

          "2 (a) "The Director" means the Director of Public
          Instruction, Punjab for the time being.
H
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                369
        AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
 (e) "Direct appointment" means an appointment made             A
 otherwise with by promotion within the service or by
 transfer of an official serving in another department of any
 State in India or the Government of India.

 3. Authority competent to make appointment: - All
                                                                8
 appointments to posts in the service shall be made by the
 Director except that Divisional Inspector/ lnspectorass of
 School or the Principals of Government Colleges may
 make any temporary or officiating appointment to a post
 other than that of the Headmaster or Headmistress or an
 Assistant District Inspector of Schools i.e., for a period not C
 exceeding three months of any time.

 8. Probation: - i) Members of the service, who are recruited
 directly against permanent vacancies shall be on probation
 in the first instance for one year.                            D

 ii) Approved officiating service shall be reckoned as period
 spent on probation, but no member who has officiated in
 any appointment for one year, may claim to be confirmed
 until he is appointed against a permanent vacancy.
                                                                E
 iii) On the completion of the period of probation the
 Director may confirm the member in his I her appointment
 or if his I her work or conduct during the period of probation
 has been in his opinion unsatisfactory, he I she may
 dispense with his I her service or may extend his I her F
 period of probation by such period as he may think fit, or
 reverse him I her to his her former post, if he I she has
 been recruited otherwise than by direct appointment,
 provided that the total period of probation including
 extensions, if any, shall not exceed three years.              G

 iv) Services spent on deputation to a corresponding or
 higher post may be allowed to count towards the period
 of probation fixed under this rule, if there is a permanent
 vacancy against which such member can be confirmed.
                                                                H
    370      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A      9. Seniority of members of the services: - The Seniority
  inter se of members of the services holding the same class of
  posts and in the same/identical grades of pay shall be
  determined by the dates of their confirmations in such posts
  provided that, if two or more members are confirmed in the
B same class or post and in the same grades of pay on the same
  date, their seniority shall be determined as follows:-

          a) A member appointed by promotion within the service
          shall be considered senior to member appointed
          otherwise.
c
          b) A member appointed by transfer from another
          department of any Government of India shall be senior to
          a member recruited by direct appointment.

D         c) In the case of members who are appointed by
          promotion, seniority shall be determined according to the
          seniority in the appointment last held.
          d) In the case of members who are recruited by transfers
          from other services or posts in Education Department of
E         Government or any other Department of any government
          in India, seniority shall be determined according to
          seniority in the appointments previously held in the cadre
          of that service.

F         e) In the case of members who were both or all recruited
          by direct appointment and shall be determined according
          to the seniority before appointment and if their
          appointments were made on the same date, then older
          members shall be senior to a younger member.
G         f) In the case of members, who are recruited by transfer
          from different departments, seniority shall be determined
          according to the scale pay preference being given to a
          member who was drawing a higher rate or pay in his
          previous appointment and if the rate of scale of pay drawn
H         is the same, an older member shall be senior to a younger
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                371
        AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
 one."                                                         A
                            ****

 THE 1998 RULES

 "6(1) Appointments to the posts in the Service in case of     B
 Middle School Headmaster, Social Studies Master,
 Science Master, Mathematics Master, Agriculture Master,
 Commerce Master, Demonstrator in Physical Education
 (P.T. Master), Home Science Master, Art Master and
 Music Master shall be made by Joint Director Schools.         c
 (2) Appointments to the posts in the Service in case of
 Sanskrit Teacher, Hindi Teacher, Punjabi Teacher, Physical
 Training Instructor, Art and Craft Teacher (Drawing
 Teacher), Tailoring Teacher and Tabla Player shall be made D
 by the respective District Education Officers of the
 concerned district.

 10 (1) Persons appointed to any post in the Service shall
 remain on probation for a period of two years, if appointed
 by direct recruitment, and one year if appointed otherwise,   E


 Provided that:-

 (a) any period, after such appointment, spent on deputation
 on a corresponding or a higher post shall count towards       F
 the period of probation;

 (b) any period of work in equivalent or higher rank, prior
 to appointment to any post in the Service, may, in the case
 of an appointment by transfer, at the direction of the G
 appointing authority, be allowed to count towards the
 period of probation fixed under this rule; and

 (c) any period of officiating appointment shall be reckoned
 as period spent on probation, but no person who has so        H
    372       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A         officiated shall, on the completion of the prescribed period
          of probation; be entitled to be confirmed, unless he is
          appointed against a permanent vacancy.

          (2) If, in the opinion of the appointing authority, the work
          or conduct of a person during the period of probation is
B
          not satisfactory, it may,

          (a) If such person is appointed by direct recruitment,
          dispense with the services; and

c         (b) If such person is appointed otherwise, than by direct
          recruitment, -

          (i) revert him to his former post; or

          (ii) deal with him in such other mar1;ner as the terms and
D         conditions of his previous appointment permit.
          (3) On the completion of period of probation of a person,
          the appointing authority may:-

          (a) if his work or conduct has, in its opinion, been
E         satisfactory, -

          (i) confirm such person from the date of his appointment,
          if appointed against a permanent vacancy; or

F         (ii) confirm such person from the date from which a
          permanent vacancy occurs, if appointed against a
          temporary vacancy; or

          (iii) declare that he has completed his probation
          satisfactorily, if there is no permanent vacancy; or
G
          (b) if his work or conduct has, in its opinion, been not
          satisfactory:-
          ( i) dispense with his service, if a~pointed by direct
          recruitment, if appointed otherwise, revert him to his former
H
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                 373
        AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
 post or deal with him in such other manner as the terms        A
 and conditions of his previous appointment permit; or

 {ii) extend his period of probation and thereafter pass such
 order, as it could have passed on the expiry of the first
 period of probation;
                                                                B
 Provided that the total period of probation including
 extension, if any, shall not exceed three years.

 11. Seniority, interse of the members of the service, shall
 be determined by the length of continuous service on any       c
 post in the service Provided that where there are different
 cadres in the Service, the seniority shall be determined
 separately for each cadre;

 Provided further that in the case of member appointed by       D
 direct recruitment, the order of merit determined by the
 Commission or any other recruiting authority as the case
 may be, shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority;

 Provided further that in the case of two or more members
 appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be           E
 determined as follows:-

 {a) a member appointed by direct recruitment shall be
 senior to member appointed by promotion or by transfer;

 {b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior to         F
 a member appointed by transfer.

 {c) in the case of a member appointed by promotion or
 by transfer, seniority shall be determined according to the
 seniority of such members in the appointment from which        G
 they are promoted or transferred; and

 {d) in the case of members appointed by transfer from
 different cadres, their seniority shall be determined
 according to pay, preference being given to a member,
                                                                H
    374       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A         who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previous
          appointment, and if the rates of pay drawn are also the
          same, then by the length of their service in the
          appointments and if the length of such service is also
          same, the older member shall be senior to the younger
B         member."

          NOTIFICATION DATED 28.01.1970

               "GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT

c                           GENERAL SERVICES

                                 NOTIFICATION

                            The 28th January, 1970

D                No.523-3GS-70/2068.-ln exercise of the powers
          conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and
          in modification of all other rules in this behalf, the Governor
          of Haryana hereby constitutes, with effect from the date of
          the publication of this notification, Subordinate Services
E         Selection Board. The constitution of the Board, the terms
          and conditions of service of the members thereof and its
          functions shall be as follows:

      6. Functions:- All appointments to non-gazetted Class Ill
      posts under the Haryana Government, except
F     appointments of officers and employees of the Punjab and
      Haryana High Court provided for in Article 229 of the
      Constitution of India, shall be made on the advice of the
      Board.

G     Provided that the State Government shall be competent to
      exclude any such posts from the purview of the Board."
      NOTIFICATION DATED 29.06.1973

                                    "PART-Ill
H
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                  375
        AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
                HARYANA GOVERNMENT                                A

        GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT

                         Notification

                    The 29th June, 1973                           B

      No. G.S.R.88/Consl/Art.309n3.- In exercise of the
 powers conferred by article 309 of the Constitution of India,
 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the
 Governor of Haryana hereby makes further amendment in            C
 the Haryana Government, General Administration
 Department, General Services, Notification No.523-3GS-
 70/2068, dated the 28th January, 1970.

       In the said notification, for para 6, the following para
 shall be substituted, namely:-                                   D

 "6. Functions:- The Board shall be consulted on the
 following matters:-

  (a)    appointments to Class Ill posts under the State
         Government, except appointments of officers and          E
         employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
         provided for in article 229 of the Constitution of
         India;

  (b)    promotions and transfers from one service or post        F
         to another service or post pertaining to Class Ill and
         Class IV posts;

  (c)    disciplinary matters pertaining to Class Ill and Class
         IV Government employees;
                                                                  G
  (d)    methods of recruitment and the principles to be
         followed in making appointments to Class Ill and
         Class IV posts under the State Government; and

  (e)    appointments to posts carrying an initial pay of not     H
    376       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 10 S.C.R. ·


A                less than one hundred and fifty rupees per mensem
                 and not more than three hundred and fifty rupees
                 per mensem under a Municipal Committee, Notified
                 Area Committee, Town Improvement Trust, Zila
                 Parishad or Panchayat Samiti except appointment
B                of the Excecutive Officer of a Municipal (Executive
                 Officers) Act, 1931, or the Patiala Municipal
                 (Executive Officers) Act, 2003 Bk.:

          Provided that it shall not be necessary to consult the Board
          in respect of such posts and matters as the State
c         Government may by notification, specify."

         11. It is not in dispute that till the framing of the 1998 Rules,
    appointments to the posts of Masters and Teachers were
    governed by the 1955 Rules. In terms of Rule 3 of the 1955
D   Rules, all appointments to posts in the service were required
    to be made by the Director with the exception that the Divisional
    lnspector/lnspectorass of the School and Principals of
    Government Colleges could make temporary or officiating
    appointment to a post other than that of the Headmaster or
E   Headmistress or an Assistant District Inspector of Schools and
    the tenure of such appointment could not exceed three months.
    In terms of Rule 8 of the 1955 Rules, a person appointed by
    direct appointment was required to be placed on probation for
    one year in the first instance and on completion of the period
F   of probation, the Director could confirm the probationer. If the
    work or conduct of the probationer was found unsatisfactory,
    the Director could either terminate his/her service or extend the
    period of probation upto a maximum period of three years.
    Clause 2 of Rule 8 postulated counting of officiating service as
G   period spent on probation. The basic criteria for fixation of
    seniority embodied in Rule 9 was the date of confirmation.
       12. Rule 6(1) of the 1998 Rules lays down that the Joint
  Director, Schools shall be competent to make appointment to
  the posts of Middle School Headmaster, Social Studies Master,
H Science Master, Mathematics Master, Agriculture Master,
   STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                  377
           AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Commerce Master, Demonstrator in Physical Education (P.T.           A
Master), Home Science Master, Art Master and Music Master.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 postulates appointment on the posts of
Sanskrit, Hindi and Punjabi Teacher, Physical Training
Instructor, Art and Craft Teacher (Drawing Teacher), Tailoring
Teacher and Tabla Player by the concerned District Education        B
Officers. Rule 10 of the 1998 Rules is substantially similar to
Rule 8 of the 1955 Rules and lays down that any person
appointed by direct recruitment shall remain on probation for
a period of 2 years which can be extended upto a maximum
of three years. On satisfactory completion of the period of         C
probation, the appointing authority could confirm such person
from the date of occurrence of permanent vacancy and if there
was no such vacancy then grant a declaration that the appointee
has satisfactorily completed the period of probation. Rule 11
lays down that seniority inter se of the members of service shall
be determined by the length of continuous service. Third
                                                                    0
proviso to this rule and Clauses (a) to (d) of that proviso
regulate the fixation of seniority in different eventualities.

     13. An analysis of Notification dated 28.1.1970 shows that
the Governor of Haryana had, in exercise of the powers              E
conferred upon him by Article 309, constituted the Board. The
primary function of the Board is to give advice in the matter of
appointment to all non-Gazetted Class Ill posts under the State
Government. By Notification dated 29.6.1973, the scope of the
Board's functions was enlarged and consultation with the            F
Board was made mandatory in the matters of promotion to
Class Ill posts under the State Government; promotions and
transfers from one service or post to another service or post
pertaining to Class Ill and Class IV, disciplinary matters
pertaining to Class Ill and Class IV employees, methods of          G
recruitment and the principles to be followed in making
appointments to Class Ill and Class IV posts, etc. By virtue of
proviso to the amended Clause 6, the State Government is
empowered to issue notification to dispense with the
requirement of consultation with the Board in respect of such       H
    378     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A posts and matters as may be specified therein.

        14. We shall now consider whether the respondents were
  regularly appointed as Masters, Physical Training Instructor and
  Hindi Teacher between 1994 and 1996, whether the competent
  authority should have taken into consideration their total length
8 of service for the purpose of fixation of seniority and whether
  the High Court rightly applied the ratio of the judgments of this
  Court in Direct Recruit Class JI Engineering Officers'
  Association v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Dr. Chandra
  Prakash v. State of U.P. (supra) for the purpose of directing
C refixation of the respondents' seniority.

        15. A reading of order dated 16.10.1995 issued by District
  Education Officer, Panipat makes it crystal clear that even
  though respondent No.1 - Vijay Singh was appointed as
D Science Master on the recommendations of the District Level
  Committee, his appointment was purely ad hoc with a tenure
  of six months or till the availability of a candidate for regular
  appointment, whichever was earlier. The other respondents
  were appointed in the same manner with similar stipulation. The
E reason why the respondents were appointed on purely ad-hoc
  basis is not far to seek. The concerned District Education
  Officers did send requisitions to the Employment Exchanges
  and appointments were made on the recommendations of the
  District Level Committee but all this was not in consonance with
  the mandate of the 1955 Rules and Notifications dated
F 28.1.1970 and 29.6.1973. At the cost of repetition, we deem
  it proper to mention that in terms of Rule 3 of the 1955 Rules,
  only the Director was competent to make appointments on the
  posts to which those rules were applicable with the exception
  that Divisional lnspector/lnspectorass of School or the Principals
G of Government Colleges could make temporary or officiating
  appointments on certain posts for a maximum period of three
  months. After the Board was constituted vide Notification dated
  28.1.1970, the Director could make appointment only on the
   recommendation of the Board unless the State Government
H
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH AND 379
            ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

was to issue notification under proviso to Clause 6 of A
Notification dated 29.6.1973. In terms of Rule 8 of the 1955
Rules, every person appointed by direct recruitment was
required to be placed on probation for a period of one year.
The respondents were neither appointed by the Director on the
recommendations of the Board nor they were placed on B
probation. As a matter of fact, they were appointed on purely
ad hoc basis without following the procedure prescribed for
regular appointment. Therefore, the mere fact that the ad hoc
appointments of the respondents were preceded by sending
requisitions to the Employment Exchanges and c
recommendations by the District Selection Committee cannot
lead to an inference that they were appointed on regular basis.

      16. It was neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor
any document was produced before the High Court to show that
the State Government had amended the 1955 Rules and D
empowered the District Education Officer to make appointment
on the posts of Masters, Physical Training Instructor and Hindi
Teacher or the requirement of consultation with the Board was
dispensed with by issuing notification under proviso to Clause
6 of Notification dated 29.6.1973. Unfortunately, the High Court E
overlooked the fact that the respondents were neither appointed
by the competent authority on the recommendations made by
the Board nor they were placed on probation. Therefore, the
conclusion recorded by the High Court that the respondents'
initial appointments were regular and, therefore, ad hoc service F
was liable to be counted for the purpose of fixation of seniority
is legally unsustainable.

      17. The issue relating to fixation of seniority deserves to
be considered from another angle. In terms of Rule 9 of the G
1955 Rules, the seniority inter se of members of the service
holding the same class of posts and in the same/identical
grades of pay is required to be determined by the dates of their
confirmation. Rule 11 of the 1998 Rules lays down that seniority
inter se of members of the service shall be determined by the H
    380       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A   length of continuous service on any post. The respondents were
    appointed on purely ad hoc basis for six months and they
    continued to serve as ad hoc Masters, Physical Training
    Instructor and Hindi Teacher till the regularization of their service
    w.e.f. 1.10.2003. Therefore, their seniority could not be fixed
B   either under Rule 9 of the 1955 Rules or Rule 11 of the 1998
    Rules by counting their service from the date of initial
    appointments.

       18. Before concluding, we consider it proper to notice the
  judgments on which reliance has been placed by learned
C counsel for the respondents. This consideration needs to be
  prefaced with an observation that the cases in which recruitment
  and conditions of service including seniority are regulated by
  the law enacted by Parliament or the State Legislature or the
  rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the general
D proposition laid down in any judgment cannot be applied de
  hors the relevant statutory provisions and dispute relating to
  seniority has to be resolved keeping in view such provisions.

       19. In Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers'
E Association v. State of Maharashtra & others (supra), the
  Constitution Bench considered the dispute of seniority between
  the direct recruits and the promotees in the light of the
  provisions contained in the Bombay Service of Engineers
  (Class I and Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1960, the Bombay
F Service of Engineers (Class I and Class II) Recruitment Rules,
  1970, the Reorganised Bombay State Overseers and Deputy
  Engineers Seniority Lists Rules, 1978, the Reorganised
  Bombay State Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers
  Seniority Lists Rules, 1981, the Maharashtra Service of
G Engineers (Regulation of Seniority and Preparation and
  Revision of Seniority Lists for Specified Period) Rules, 1982,
  etc. After examining the relevant rules, the Court culled out the
  following propositions:

          "(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according
H         to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                   381
        AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
 appointment and not according to the date of his                  A
 confirmation.

 The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial
 appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and
 made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such           8
 post cannot be taken into account for considering the
 seniority.

 (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the
 procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee
 continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation     C
 of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of
 officiating service will be counted.

 (C) When appointments are made from more than one
 source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from   D
 the different sources, and if rules are framed in this regard
 they must ordinarily be followed strictly.

 (D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota
 rule, it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet
 the needs of the situation. In case, however, the quota rule      E
 is not followed continuously for a number of years because
 it was impossible to do so the inference is irresistible that
 the quota rule had broken down.

 (E) Where the quota rule has broken down and the                  F
 appointments are made from one source in excess of the
 quota, but are made after following the procedure
 prescribed by the rules for the appointment, the appointees
 should not be pushed down below the appointees from the
 other source inducted in the service at a later date.             G
 (F) Where the rules permit the authorities to relax the
 provisions relating to the quota, ordinarily a
  presumption should be raised that there was such
 relaxation when there is a deviation from the quota rule.
                                                                   H
    382       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A         (G) The quota for recruitment from the different sources
          may be prescribed by executive instructions, if the rulesare
          silent on the subject.

          (H) If the quota rule is prescribed by an executive
          instruction, and is not followed continuously for a number
B
          of years, the inference is that the executive instruction has
          ceased to remain operative.

          (I) The posts held by the permanent Deputy Engineers as
          well as the officiating Deputy Engineers under the State
c         of Maharashtra belonged to the single cadre of Deputy
          Engineers.

          (J) The decision dealing with important questions
          concerning a particular service given after careful
D         consideration should be respected rather than scrutinised
          for finding out any possible error. It is not in the interest of
          Service to unsettle a settled position."

       20. In State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath (supra), the
  three Judge Bench considered an apparent contradiction in
E conclusions (A) and (B) in the judgment of the Constitution
  Bench, and observed:

          "22. There can be no doubt that these two conclusions
          have to be read harmoniously, and conclusion (B) can not
F         cover cases which are expressly excluded by conclusion
          (A). We may, therefore, first refer to conclusion (A). It is
          clear from conclusion (A) that to enable seniority to be
          counted from the date of initial appointment and not
          according to the date of confirmation, the incumbent of the
          post has to be initially appointed, according to rules. The
G
          corollary set out in conclusion (A), then is, that where the
          initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to
          rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation
          in such posts cannot be taken into account for considering
          the seniority. Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A) expressly
H
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                   383
        AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
 excludes the category of cases where the initial                  A
 appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules,
 being made only as a stop-gap arrangement. The case
 of the writ petitioners squarely falls within this corollary in
 conclusion (A), which says that the officiation in such posts
 cannot be taken into account for counting the seniority."         B

 "25. In our opinion the conclusion (B) was added to cover
 over a different kind of situation, wherein the appointments
 are otherwise regular, except for the deficiency of certain
 procedural requirements laid down by the rules. This is C
 clear from the opening words of the conclusion (B},
 namely, 'if the initial appointment is not made by following
 the procedure laid down by the rules' and the later
 expression 'till the regularisation of his service in
 accordance with the rules'. We read conclusion (B}, and
 it must be so read to reconcile with conclusion (A), to D
 cover the cases where the initial appointment is made
 against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period
 of time or purpose by the appointment order itself, and is
 made subject to the deficiency in the procedural
 requirements prescribed by the rules for adjudging E
 suitability of the appointee for the post being cured at the
 time of regularisation, the appointee being eligible and
 qualified in every manner for a regular appointment on the
 date of initial appointment in such cases. Decision about
 the nature of the appointment, for determining whether it F
 falls in this category, has to be made on the basis of the
 terms of the initial appointment itself and the provisions in
 the rules. In such cases, the deficiency in the procedural
 requirements laid down by the rules has to be cured at the
 first available opportunity, without any default of the G
 employee, and the appointee must continue in the post
 uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service, in
 accordance with the rules. In such cases, the appointee
 is not to blame for the deficiency in the procedural
 requirements under the rules at the time of his initial H
    384       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A         appointment, and the appointment not-being limited to a
          fixed period of time is intended to be a regular
          appointment, subject to the remaining procedural
          requirements of the rules being fulfilled at the earliest. In
          such cases also, if there be any delay in curing the defects
8         on account of any fault of the appointee, the appointee
          would not get the full benefit of the earlier period on
          account of his default, the benefit being confined only to
          the period for which he is not to blame. This category of
          cases is different from those covered by the corollary in
c         conclusion (A) which relates to appointment only on ad hoc
          basis as a stop-gap arrangement and not according to
          rules. It is, therefore, not correct to say, that the present
          cases can fall within the ambit of conclusion (8), even
          though they are squarely covered by the corollary in
          conclusion (A)."
D
        21. In M.K. Shanmugam v. U.0.1. (supra), another three
    Judge Bench referred to the aforementioned two judgments
    and observed:

E         "If the ad hoc selection is followed by regular selection, then
          the benefit of ad hoc service is not admissible if ad hoc
          appointment is in violation of the rules. If the ad hoc
          appointment has been made as a stopgap arrangement
          and where there was a procedural irregularity in making
F         appointments according to rules and that irregularity was
          subsequently rectified, the principle to be applied in that
          case was stated once again. There is difficulty in the way
          of the appellants to fight out their case for seniority should
          be reckoned by reason of the length of the service whether
          ad hoc or otherwise inasmuch as they had not been
G         recruited regularly. As stated earlier, the appellants were
          regularly found fit for promotion only in the year 1977 and
          if that period is reckoned their cases could not be
          considered as found by the Tribunal. The view expressed
          by this Court in these cases have been again considered
H
    STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                     385
            AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

      in the decisions in Anuradha Bodi (Dr) v. Municipal                A
      Corporation of Delhi (1998) 5 SCC 292, Keshav Deo v.
      State of U.P., (1999) 1 SCC 280, Major Yogendra Narain
       Y~dav v. Bindeshwar Prasad, (1997) 2 SCC 150, l.K.
      Sukhija v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 406, and Govt.
      of A.P. v. Y. Sagareswara Rao, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 16,               B
      but ;ill these decisions do not point out that in case the
      promotions had been made ad hoc and they are
      subsequently regularized in the service in all the cases, ad
      hoc service should be reckoned for the purpose of
      seniority. It is only in those cases where initially they had      c
      been recruited even though they have been appointed ad
      hoc the recruitment was subject to the same process as it
      had been done in the case of regular appointment and that
      the same was not a stopgap arrangement."
       22. In State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS              D
  Association and another (2000) 8 SCC 4, the three Judge
  Bench considered the question whether the ad hoc service
  rendered by the respondents in the cadre of Assistant
  Engineers can be added to their regular service for the purpose
  of higher pay scale. While reversing the judgment of the majority      E
  of the Full Bench which had ruled in favour of the writ petitioner
. and declared that ad hoc service was to be clubbed with the
  regular service for the purpose of grant of financial benefits, this
  Court held:
            "A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions of           F
      the Recruitment Rules puts the controversy beyond any
      doubt and the only conclusion which could be drawn from
      the aforesaid Rules is that the services rendered either on
      an ad hoc basis or as a stopgap arrangement, as in the
      case in hand from 1980 to 1982 cannot be held to be                G
      regular service for getting the benefits of the revised scale
      of pay or of the selection grade under the government
      memorandum dated 2-6-1989 and 16-5-1990, and
      therefore, the majority judgment of the High Court must be
      held to be contrary to the aforesaid provisions of the             H
    386       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A         Recruitment Rules, consequently cannot be sustained. The
          initial letter of appointment dated 6-12-1979 pursuance to
          which respondent Rakesh Kumar joined as am Assistant
          Engineer on an ad hoc basis in 1980 was also placed
          before us. The said appointment letter unequivocally
B         indicates that the offer of appointment as Assistant
          Engineer was on ad hoc basis and clauses 1 to 4 of the
          said letter further provides that the appointment will be on
          an ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months from the date of
          joining and the salary was a fixed salary of Rs.400 p.m. in
c         the scale of Rs.400 to Rs.1100 and the services were
          liable to be terminated without any notice and at any time
          without assigning any reason and that the appointment will
          not enable the appointee any seniority or any other benefit
          under the Service Rules for the time being in force and will
          not count towards increment in the time scale. In view of
D
          the aforesaid stipulations in the offer of appointment itself
          we really fail to understand as to how the aforesaid period
          of service rendered on ad hoc basis can be held to be
          service on regular basis. The conclusion of the high Court
          is contrary to the very terms and conditions stipulated in
E         the offer of appointment and, therefore, the same cannot
          be sustained."

        23. In Dr. Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P. (supra), the
  Court interpreted the U.P. Medical Service (Men's Branch)
F Rules, 1945, U.P. Medical Services (Men's Branch)
  (Amendment) Rules, 1981, U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc
  Appointments (on Posts within the Purview of the Public
  Service Commission) Rules, 1979 and held that the appellants
  who had been appointed against substantive vacancies and
G were continuing from 1965-1976 to 1983 and were enjoying all
  the benefits of regular service are entitled to seniority from the
  date of initial appointment. The Court also observed that the
  'rule of seniority' had been interpreted by the Court for a long
  period of time and it would not be proper to upset the principles
H laid down in other judgments.
  STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. VIJAY SINGH                   387
          AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
      24. None of the aforesaid judgments can be read as laying     A
down a proposition of law that a person who is appointed on
purely ad hoc basis for a fixed period by an authority other than
the one who is competent to make regular appointment to the
service and such appointment is not made by the specified
recruiting agency is entitled to have his ad hoc service counted    B
for the purpose of fixation of seniority. Therefore, the
respondents, who were appointed as Masters in different
subjects, Physical Training Instructor and Hindi Teacher on
purely ad hoc basis without following the procedure prescribed
under the 1955 Rules are not entitled to have their seniority       c
fixed on the basis of total length of service. As a corollary to
this, we hold that the direction given by the High Court for
refixation of the respondents' seniority by counting the ad hoc
service cannot be approved.
     25. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order   D
is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is
dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
B.B.B.                                         Appeal allowed.