Y. H. PAWARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

(




                               Y.H.PAWAR                                        A
                                    v.
                      STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

                                 MARCH 14, 1996

                   [K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND                             B
                          K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ]

            Service Law :

          Seniority-Reckoning of-Ad-hoc appointment-Coming into force of        C
    recmitment mies-Regularisation of service as per mies-Claim of seniority
    from date of initial appointment-Held not permissible-Held seniority
    should be reckoned from the date of regularisation as per statutory mies.

            Excise Commissioner, Kamataka & Anr. v. Sreekanta, [1993) Supp. 3
    sec 53, relied on.                                                          D
         Direct Recmit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of
    Maharashtra & 01"., [1990) 2 SCC 715, held inapplicable.

            Gumlingaswamy v. State, Application No. 663 of 1989, referred to.
                                                                                E
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6882 of
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.93 of the Karnataka High
    Court in A. No. 1007 of 1993.
                                                                                F
            R.S. Hegde and P.P. Singh for the Appellant.

            P. Mahale for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the. Court was delivered :
                                                                                G
            Leave granted.

            We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

        Appellant was appointed as a Class III employee on ad hoc basis on
    March 22, 1960, after his name was called from the Employment Exchange,     H
                                       429
    430                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A   in the Directorate of Public Health. In 1960, the Ministerial Recruitment
    Rules had come into force but the appellant was not regularised in the
    service. He came to be regularised on May 6, 1968 giving him seniority with
    effect from the date on which the selection was made. The appellant
    challenged the action in 0.A. No. 1007/93 in the Karnataka Administrative
    Tribunal which by the impugned order dated April 30, 1993 dismissed the
B   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
C   sanction of the Government the appointments would be regular appoint-
    ments. Therefore, he must he 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
D   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 regularised with effect from the date of coming into force of the
    Rules. The action taken by the Government was upheld by the Administra-
    tive Tribunal following decision in Gurnlingaswanty v. State, (Application
    No. 663 of 1989) which was followed in this petition. Tht;refore, when the
E   earlier candidates have been regularised according to the statutory Rules,
    the appellant cannot claim higher rank.

          It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view
    of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recrnit
F   Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
    [1990] 2 sec 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 appoint-
    ments are made on ad hoc basis without conducting any competitive
    examination. As and when vacancy had arisen local candidates were called
G   from Employment Exchange and were appointed. Therefore, the appoint-
    ments cannot be considered to have been made on regular basis. When the
    Rules came to be made, all the appointments are sought to be regularised.
    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
H   regularise the services.
                        Y.H. PAW AR v. STATE                            431

      This Court in Excise Commissioner, Kamataka & Anr. v. V. Sreekanta, A
[1993] Supp. 3 SCC 53, in similar circumstances had considered the effect
of such an appointment in paragraph 14 which reads thus :

         "Aft.er giving our anxious consideration to the respective conten-
         tions of the parties it appears to us that the writ petitioner/respon- B
         dent, 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 appoint-
         ment in the context of sanction of the said posts by the Govern-
      . men!, in our view, clearly deinonstrates that such appointment of
         the said respondent and other employees in 1968 was ad hoc C
        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 regularisation of his ad hoc appoint-
        ment was made possible because of the framing of the said Special D
        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 regularisation under the said .
        Special Rules of Recruitment in 1970. It appears to us that under E
        Rule 3 of the said Special Rules of Recruitment of 1970, the
        respondent, having possessed the minimum qualifications
        prescribed by the said Special Rules of Recruitment for recruit-
        ment to Class III posts and the said respondent having been
        appointment on or after January 1, 1965 as a local candidate to a F
        Class Ill 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 G
        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 H
    432                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1996) 3 S.C.R.

A            erroneous and we have 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. 11

B         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.
c
    T.N.A.                                                    Appeal dismissed.




                                                           "' .