Sale Under Tpa

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

ACT, 1956

TOPIC – SALE-DEFINITION, ESSENTIALS AND CONTRACT FOR SALE.

SUBMITTED TO - DR. JASNEET SUBMITTED BY –SHIVAM SHARMA

KAUR ROLL NO. – 150/11

UILS PANJAB UNIVERSITY

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

-University Institute Of Legal Studies-

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher “DR. JASNEET KAUR ” who

gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic ‘Sale- Definition its

essentials and contract for sale’, which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to

know about so many new things. I am really thankful to her. I would also like to thank my

parents and friends who helped me a lot in finishing this project within the limited time.

I am making this project not only for marks but to also increase my knowledge.

THANKS AGAIN TO ALL WHO HELPED ME.

CONTENTS

-STATUS OF AD HOC EMPLOYEES AND THEIR REGULARIZATION-


1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS---------------------------------------------------- 4

2. TABLE OF CASES------------------------------------------------------------- 5

3. INTRODUCTION-------------------------------------------------------------- 6

4. SALE DEFINED, SALE HOW MADE---------------------------------------- 7

(A) DEFINITION OF SALE

(B) ESSENTIALS OF SALE

5. CONTRACT FOR SALE--------------------------------------------------------14

6. DIFFERENCE B/W SALE AND CONTRACT FOR SALE------------------------15

7. HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND SALE----------------------------------16

8. SALE AND EXCHANGE--------------------------------------------------------16

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND WEBLIOGRAPHY -------------------------------------17

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS



AIR All India Reporter

Hon’ble Honorable

etc et cetera

i.e. id est (that means)

r/w read with

S. Section

LJ Law Journal

Re. Reference

US United States

No. Number

Ors. Others

Cri. Criminal

p. Page

w.e.f with effect from

PC Privy Council

FC Federal Court

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

Pat. Patna

& and

TABLE OF CASES



Rudra Kumar sain V. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 2808

J.&K Public Service Commission V. Narinder Mohan AIR 1994 SC 1808

J.M. Puthnparambil V. Kerala Water Authority, AIR 1990 SC 2228

Raj Kishore V. Union of India (1997)11 SCC 619

Ramesh K. Sharma V. Rajasthan Civil Services, AIR 2001 SC 362

State of Karnataka V. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806

Rattan lal V. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 478

Saroj Kumar V .State of Punjab, 1998(5) SLR (P. &H.)266

Rabinarayana Mohapatra V. State of Orissa AIR 1991 SC 1286

Director, Institute of Management Development V. Pushpa Srivstava (1992)4 SCC 33

Hindustan Petroleum corporation Ltd. V. Ashok Rangbha Ambre 2008(2) SLR 321 (SC)

O.P. Gupta V. M.C. Delhi, 1973(1) SLR 209

State of Mysore V. S.V. Narayanappa 1967(1)SLR 128 (SC)

Sumati P.Shere V. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 1431

State of Haryana V. Piara Singh AIR 1992 SC 2130

Ashwani Kumar V. State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 1628

Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Association V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1990 SC

1607

Ram Paul Khajuria V. State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) 1999 (1) SCT 729

State of Jharkhand V. Manshu Kumbhkar, 2008 (1) SLR 1

Nasib Singh V. State of Punjab1999 (5) SLR 497 (P. & H).

K. Madalaimuthu V. State of Tamil Nadu(2006) 6 SCC 558

INTRODUCTION



Article 309 of the Constitution of India confers power on the appropriate authority to regulate the

recruitment to the public services of the Union or of any State. It enables the Executive to make

recruitment to the government services. However, this power of the Executive is subjected to the

provisions of the Constitution and the provisions of any statute enacted by the appropriate

Legislature. It has been held that the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the

Executive. The Executive may exercise this power either by making rules under the proviso to

Article 309 or (in the absence of such rules) by issuing rules/instructions in the exercise of its

executive power.

Normally, the appointments to government services are made through the prescribed agency. But

exigencies of administration may sometimes call for making of ad hoc or temporary

appointments. It has been held that the power to make ad hoc appointments may be visualized to

tide over unforeseen exigencies.1 The object behind the exercise of this power is to run smooth

administration.

MEANING OF AD HOC APPOINTMENT

Literally the term “ad hoc” means “arranged or done for a particular purpose only.” It means

“something which is formed for a particular purpose.” Referring to Black’s Law Dictionary, the

apex court in Rudra Kumar sain V. Union of India,2 distinguished between the terms “ad hoc”,

“stop-gap” and “fortuitous”, which are in frequent use in service jurisprudence. The Apex court

said:

“The expression “fortuitous” means “occurring by chance”, the expression “ad hoc”

means “something which is formed for a particular purpose” and the expression “stop-gap”

means “a temporary way of dealing with the problem or satisfying a need”.

Appointments made for a particular purpose without reference to wider application or

employment would fall in the category of appointments on ad hoc basis. Such appointments must

be considered in the context of the services under the rule making control of the government. If a

1 J.&K Public Service Commission V. Narinder Mohan AIR 1994 SC 18082 AIR 2000 SC 2808



very wide meaning is given to the term ad hoc, it can be said that all post requiring specialized

knowledge are ad hoc as appointments are made thereto for a particular purpose and not for any

general purpose. 3

Ad hoc appointments are generally made when there is temporary vacancy. It may also be that

the service rules may themselves provide for the making of ad hoc appointment.4

The court further elucidated that if an appointment was made to meet the contingency arising on

account of delay in completing the process of regular recruitment to the post due to any reason

and it was not possible to leave the post vacant till then, and to meet that contingency an

appointment was made, then it could appropriately be called as a “stop-gap” arrangement and

appointment in the post as “ad hoc” appointment. The court further said that it was not possible

to neither lay down any straight jacket formula nor give an exhaustive list of circumstances and

situations, in which an ad hoc appointment could be made.5

Appointment of typist in Railways made, without the process of selection, by relaxing the rules,

would be ad hoc. The period of such appointment, where the same was continuous and was

followed by selection through Public Service Commission would count towards seniority.6

But merely because there was no relevant service rules for recruitment to the post, it cannot be

assumed that such appointment has been made without any selection and, as such appointment

would attract the expression “ad hoc”. The question, as to whether an appointment is “ad hoc”,

has to be answered on the basis of relevant factors, namely, the nature of the post, the nature of

test or selection held for the filling up the post, the period of duration with which incumbent

availed the post and all other relevant materials.7

3 Justice T.S Doabia, “The law of Services and dismissals”,4th edition, vol1, Nagpur, pg-7564 Ibid at pg- 7555 J.M. Puthnparambil V. Kerala Water Authority, AIR 1990 SC 22286 Raj Kishore V. Union of India (1997)11 SCC 6197 Ramesh K. Sharma V. Rajasthan Civil Services, AIR 2001 SC 362



ADHOCISM- ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY8

Ad hoc appointments, a convenient way of entry, usually from back door, at times even in

disregard of rules and regulations, are comparatively recent innovations to the service

jurisprudence. The infection is said to be widespread in government or semi-government

departments or state financed institutions. The Apex Court has deprecated the regularisation and

absorption of persons working as part-time employees or on ad hoc basis, as it has become a

common method of allowing back door entries9

The Supreme Court held that the policy of “adhocism” followed by the State Government for a

long period had led to the breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. Under this policy, the state

government had been appointing teachers for quite some time on ad hoc basis for short periods

without justifiable reason. In some cases the appointments were made for a period of six months

only and they were renewed after a break of few days. These ad hoc teachers were denied the

benefit of summer vacations as also the salary and allowances payable in respect to that period

and to all other privileges such as casual leave, medical leave, etc., unreasonably on account of

this pernicious system of appointment adopted by the State Government. They were

unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary “hiring and firing” policy. The Apex court held that

though the Government was expected to function as a model employer, yet it appeared to be

exploiting the situation. Such a situation, the court said, could not be permitted to last any

longer.10

Emphasizing that education was dire need of the country and the constitutional obligation of the

State to secure right to education for all the citizens11, the Supreme Court in Rabinarayana

Mohapatra V. State of Orissa,12 disapproved Adhocism in teaching appointments. The Court held

that an appointment on 89 days basis with one day break, which deprived the teachers of his

salary for the period of summer vacation and other service benefits, was wholly arbitrary and

suffered from the vice of discrimination. In order to make the existing educational set up

8 Prof. Narender Kumar, “Law relating to Government Servants & Management of Disciplinary Proceedings”, 2008, pg-1739 State of Karnataka V. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806 10 Rattan lal V. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 47811 Articles 41 and 45 of the Constitution of India12 AIR 1991 SC 1286



effective and efficient, the Apex Court ruled that it was necessary to do away with adhocism in

teaching appointments.

STATUS OF AD HOC EMPLOYEES

As regards the status, the ad hoc employees virtually stand at lowest govt. employees.

An ad hoc employee doesn’t acquire the right to hold the post or to continue in employment indefinitely in contrast to a regular employee. The ad hoc employees are said to form a distinct class. Surinder Paul Singh v. PSEB, 1997 P&H.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Faculty Association, P.G.I. V. Union of India, 1995 held that the ad hoc appointees have no right to claim regularisation of their services.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in V.J. Balready v. Andhra Bank, 1997 ruled that when an ad hoc appointment was made for a particular time and not in accordance with the prescribed rules, it being merely a stop-gap arrangement (act of appointing someone in ad hoc capacity), the appointee had no right to claim continuance in service after the expiry of the period of appointment.

In Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P., 1996 S.C., the Supreme Court held that it being a stop-gap arrangement, the ad hoc appointee doesn’t acquire right to hold the post, it is only transient in nature( vacate the post when regular persons are appointed) pending the allotment of employees selected according to the prescribed rules and regulations.

As regards the status, the ad hoc employees virtually stand at the lowest rung as against

permanent, quasi-permanent and temporary employees. It has been held that an ad hoc employee

does not acquire the right to hold the post or to continue in employment indefinitely in contrast

to a regular employee. The ad hoc employees are said to form a distinct class. 13

It being a stop-gap arrangement, an ad hoc appointment does not automatically give any vested

right to the appointee to claim continuity in service till it is regularized. It is only transient in

nature pending the allotment of employees selected according to the prescribed rules and

regulations.

13 Saroj Kumar V .State of Punjab, 1998(5) SLR (P. &H.)266



RIGHTS OF AN AD HOC APPOINTEE

The rights of an ad hoc appointee may be stated as under:14

i. NO RIGHT TO THE POST: An ad hoc appointee or promotee has no right to the post. In

Director, Institute of Management Development V. Pushpa Srivstava,15 it was held that

where the appointment is purely on ad hoc basis and is contractual and any efflux of time

the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to

continue in the post.

An ad hoc appointment does not by itself confer any right on the ad hocist for regular

appointment in such a post. But it is equally true that even though an ad hoc appointee

has no right to hold that post to which he is so appointed, he can nevertheless be reverted

to his lower substantive post only for valid reasons such as his unsuitability to hold the

post, the availability of the person holding a lien on the post, selection of a regular

incumbent or other exigencies of public service. An ad hoc appointment, though by its

nature a precarious tenure nevertheless carries a limited right to that extent and if such an

appointee is reverted illegally and arbitrarily, he would be entitled to challenge it and

seek enforcement of his right.16

ii. LIABLE TO BE DISCHARGED: They are liable to be discharged or reverted to make

room for a regular appointee or promotee, pending which the ad hoc arrangement was

resorted to.

iii. DISCHARGE WOULD NOT ATTRACT ARTICLE 311(2) OF CONSTITUTION: The

discharge and reversal of an ad hoc appointee even after an employee has continued for

any length of time would not amount to a dismissal or reduction in rank so as to attract

Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, unless it is shown that it was:

a) intended to be a measure of punishment,

b) the cast any stigma,14 Supra 3 pg- 75615 (1992)4 SCC 3316 P.K. Majumdar and O.P. Tiwari, “Service Laws in India”, 3rd ed, Orient Publishing Company, pg-189



c) was otherwise malafide; or

d) it inflicts upon the delinquent civil consequences of a penal nature.

iv. Termination on the ground of alleged illegality of the regularisation has been held to be

bad. The employee should be continued as ad hoc employees after the order of

regularisation is revoked as was done in respect of certain other similarly situated

employee.

PROCEDURE FOR MAKING AD HOC APPOINTMENTS

The Executive is vested with power, subject of course, to a law made by the appropriate

Legislature, to make provisions for regulating the recruitment to public services. This power,

however, should be exercised fairly and ensuring a fair deal to every person consistent with the

requirements of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further the State should not exploit its

employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the

unemployed persons or the employees as the case may be.

Even in making ad hoc appointments, the State must adopt some procedure consistent with the

requirement of Article 16, except in extraordinary situations where the appointments brook no

delay whatsoever. Appointments made by pick and choose method in an arbitrary manner

inconsistent with the requirement of Article 16 are liable to be quashed by the courts. It has been

emphasized that for making ad hoc appointments, person should ordinarily be drawn from the

Employment Exchange. In case no candidate is sponsored by the Employment Exchange, some

appropriate method consistent with Articles 14 and 16 should be followed17.

PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO AD HOC APPOINTEES

The ad hoc appointees are entitled to twin protections:

a) Minimum of pay scale;

17 Supra 8 pg- 178



b) Continuance till regular incumbents joins.18

Article 14 and 16 to be complied with even in the case of stop-gap or ad hoc appointments.

Where the infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of

India to be considered for promotion is complained, it is no answer to say that because

appointments were made from time to time until the finalization of rules only on ad hoc basis,

the eligible person had no right to be considered for promotion. Whatever be the nature of

appointment i.e. permanent, temporary or ad hoc, a person eligible for promotion has a right to

be considered.19

TERMINATION OF SERVICE

Termination of ad hoc employee at any time is inherent in the nature of service. In Hindustan

Petroleum corporation Ltd. V. Ashok Rangbha Ambre20, the respondent was engaged by the

corporation in 1984, on casual basis, as an unskilled workman at its refinery at Bombay. In 1992,

he filed a writ petition in the High court by invoking Article 226, praying that he be declared as

permanent workman on the post of compounder/dressor w.e.f. June 6, 1987 in the corporation. It

appeared from the record that he was engaged purely on ad hoc basis without following proper

procedure of law and without there being any right in his favor. The services were terminated by

the corporation. But, the tribunal quashed the termination order. His name was never sponsored

by the Employment Exchange nor was an advertisement issued for the purpose of filling the post

to which the respondent was appointed. The appointment of the respondent was not found to be

legal and lawful. The apex court held that merely because in industrial adjudication, an order of

termination was quashed, the workman was not held to have substantive right to hold the post.

The court held him not entitled to be regularized as permanent employee.

In State of Mysore V. S.V. Narayanappa,21the court stated that regularisation would not mean that

the appointment would have to be considered as permanent. It explained that the words “regular”

or “regularisation” did not connote “permanence”.

18 Supra 3 pg-75719 O.P. Gupta V. M.C. Delhi, 1973(1) SLR 20920 2008(2) SLR 321 (SC)21 1967(1)SLR 128 (SC)



In Sumati P.Shere V. Union of India22, the Supreme Court emphasized that if services of an ad

hoc employee were to be discontinued on the grounds of unsuitability, it was proper and

necessary that he should be told in advance that his work and performance were not upto the

mark. The employee should be made aware of the defect in his work and deficiencies in his

performance. Timely communication of the defects might put the employee on the right track.

Without any such communication, the court ruled, it would be arbitrary to give a movement

order to the employee on the ground of unsuitability.

REGULARISATION OF AD HOC EMPLOYEES

It has been often said that the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, the courts

have emphasized that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc appointment status

for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the court presumes that

there is a need and warrant for regular post. In that event the court may direct regularisation of ad

hoc employees.

In State of Haryana V. Piara Singh23, a large number of writ petitions, arising from both the

states of Punjab and Haryana, were heard together, by the Apex Court and a common judgment

was delivered, giving certain directions in the matter of regularisation of the ad hoc and other

temporary employees. The directions may be summarized as follows:

a) The court while giving directions for regularisation of ad hoc employees, must act with

due care and caution.

b) From the mere continuance of an ad hoc employee for one year, it cannot be presumed

that there is a need for a regular post.

c) There can be no rule of thumb in such matters. Conditions and circumstances of one unit

may not be the same as of the other.

22 AIR 1989 SC 143123 AIR 1992 SC 2130



d) The relief must be moulded in each case having regard to all the relevant facts and

circumstances of that case. It cannot be a mechanical act but a judicious one. The

conditions or rules relating to length of temporary/ad hoc service requisite for

regularisation need not be uniform in each state.

e) The employees must have possessed prescribed qualification at the time of ad hoc

appointment.

f) The condition that employee must have been sponsored by Employment Exchange would

be reasonable and wholesome requirement designed to curb back door entry.

g) The court cannot direct regularisation to help employees who could not satisfy the

stipulated conditions.

h) Exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment

to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc

employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary

employee may also compete along with others for such regular appointment/selection.

i) The appointment of a regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance

for the sake of such an ad hoc employee.

j) An ad hoc employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc employee; he must be

replaced by a regularly selected candidate.

k) Even where an ad hoc appointment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of the

administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the Employment Exchange unless it

cannot brook delay.

l) If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, some

appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed.

m) An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not

available through the above processes.

n) If and when an ad hoc employee is regularized, he should be placed immediately below

the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class of service, as the case may

be.



In J. & K. Public Service Commission V. Narinder Mohan24, the Supreme Court explained the

effect of the decision in State of Haryana V. Piara Singh, and observed that the Apex court did

not appear to have intended to lay down, as a general rule, that in every category of ad hoc

appointment, if the ad hoc employee appointed continued for long period, the rules of

recruitment should be relaxed and the appointment by regularisation be made. The Court,

therefore held that a little leeway to make ad hoc appointment due to emergent exigencies, did

not clothe the Executive government with power to relax the recruitment or to regularize such

appointment nor to claim such appointment to be regular or in accordance with rules.

It is thus well established that any appointment made on ad hoc basis or as a stop-gap

arrangement does not automatically give any vested right to such an employee to claim

continuity in service till it is regularized. Again, where initial ad hoc appointment is made not in

accordance with the service rules, the appointees cannot seek regularisation of their services.

In Ashwani Kumar V. State of Bihar,25 the Apex Court held that the employees, whose entry in

service was illegal, being in total disregard of the recruitment rules or being not on existing

vacancies, had no case for regularisation. The court explained that the question of regularisation

in any service might arise in two contingencies. Firstly, if on any available clear vacancy which

was of a long duration, appointment was made on ad hoc basis, by a competent authority and the

appointee continued on ad hoc basis for a given substantial length of time with a pre-condition

that the initial entry of such an employee must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy

by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. The second type of situation would

be when the initial entry against an available vacancy was found to have suffered from some

flaw in the procedural exercise though the person appointing was competent to effect such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment.

The Apex Court made it clear that the so-called regularisation and confirmation could not be

relied on as shields to cover up initial illegal and void actions or to perpetuate the corrupt

methods of making recruitment.

24 AIR 1994 SC 180825 AIR 1997 SC 1628



COUNTING OF AD HOC SERVICE TOWARDS SENIORITY

It has been stated that where an ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the court presumes

that there is need and warrant for regular post and accordingly the court directs regularisation of

service. On regularisation, the further question needs to be determined as to the counting of ad

hoc service towards seniority. The question has engaged the attention of the courts on many

occasions. In such cases the courts have considered the circumstances under which and the

manner in which the ad hoc appointment has been made.

In Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Association V. State of Maharashtra26, a Constitution

bench of the Supreme Court ruled that where the initial appointment was only ad hoc and not

according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post could not be

taken into account for considering the seniority.

In Ram Paul Khajuria V. State of Jammu and Kashmir27, placing reliance on the decision given

by the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Association V. State of

Maharashtra, it was concluded:

a) That the policy of making appointment on ad hoc basis which leads to breach of Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India should not be permitted for unduly long period;

b) Ad hoc period of service can be counted if the initial appointment is made under the

rules;

c) Where ad hoc appointment is made and the vacancies have been referred to the Public

Service Commission or to the Departmental Promotion Committee, then the ad hoc

appointees cannot be given the benefit of the service rendered by them on ad hoc basis.

Recruitment of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wages or ad hoc employees de hors the

Constitutional scheme of public employment, does not entitle them to claim regularisation. Such

26 AIR 1990 SC 160727 (J&K) 1999 (1) SCT 729



persons are said to have no right to invoke legitimate expectation, if any, to be absorbed,

regularized or granted permanent continuance, on the basis of such relief having been granted to

similarly placed employees in certain orders of the Supreme Court. Even long continuance of

such employees on irregular basis, would not entitle them, to claim equality with regularly

recruited employees.

It is a trite law that where neither the initial appointment nor the confirmation was done by

following the prescribed procedure, regularisation of such an appointment, being illegal, would

be clear violation of Articles 14 and 16(1). It has also been ruled that question of confirmation or

regularisation of an irregularly appointed candidate would arise, if the candidate concerned was

appointed in an irregular manner or on ad hoc basis against an available vacancy which was

already sanctioned. But, if the initial entry itself was unauthorized and was not against any

sanctioned vacancy, question of regularizing the incumbent on such a non-existing vacancy,

would never survive for consideration and if such purported regularisation or confirmation was

given, it would be an exercise in futility. It would amount to decorating a stillborn baby.28

BENEFIT OF SENIORITY, PROMOTION AND PENSION TO AD HOC EMPLOYEES

An ad hoc appointee whose services have been regularized by the regularization rules framed

under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India after being duly selected by the

selection committee and becoming member of the services would be entitled to seniority. This

would be from the date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with the

regulations. The purely ad hoc employees or employees on purely officiating basis or employees

purely for a temporary employment period in the cadre being not members of the service in

accordance with the service rules are not entitled to have the benefit of their adventitious, purely

ad hoc and temporary service. Even appointments to temporary post would not be reckoned for

determination of seniority unless and until they become members of the services according to the

provision of the service rules.29

28 State of Jharkhand V. Manshu Kumbhkar, 2008 (1) SLR 129 Supra 3 pg- 764



In Nasib Singh V. State of Punjab30, the court held that the entire service shall be counted for the

period of pension, if a temporary or ad hoc service is followed.

In K. Madalaimuthu V. State of Tamil Nadu31, the court held that the seniority of a person

appointed temporarily to a particular post without recourse to the Recruitment Rules can be

counted only from the date on which his services are regularized.

LATEST GUIDELINES BY THE SUPREME COURT

Recently on 14 Feb, 2014, the Supreme Court has issued a slew of guidelines for high courts and

trial courts to curb the menace of ad hoc appointments and to ensure availability of staff.

A Bench led by Justice B S Chauhan said all posts shall be filled by issuing advertisements in at

least two newspapers, one of which must be in a regional language with wide circulation.

“The exercise to fill vacancies at the earliest must start in advance to ensure the selected person

joins immediately on availability of the post, and hence, there may be no occasion to appoint any

person on ad hoc basis for the reason that the problem of inducting daily labourers who are

ensured of a regular appointment subsequently has to be avoided and a fair procedure must be

adopted giving equal opportunity,” it said.

The Bench asked high courts and subordinate courts to undertake the exercise of recruitment on

a regular basis at least once a year for existing vacancies or vacancies likely to occur within a

said period. The court said this will also control the menace of ad-hocism.

30 1999 (5) SLR 497 (P. & H).31 (2006) 6 SCC 558



The Bench said: “There can be no doubt that employment, whether of class IV, III, II or any

other class in the High Court or courts subordinate to it falls within the definition of public

employment. Such employment, therefore, has to be made under rules and orders of the

competent authority.”

The order came on a bunch of petitions relating to appointment of class IV employees in courts

subordinate to the Delhi HC. The dispute had arisen over the continuity of employees appointed

an ad hoc basis for 89 days, which would extend for the same period after the same interval.32

BIBLIOGRAPHY

D.P.Tiwari, R.K. Majumdar . Service Laws in India. New Delhi: Orient Publishing

Company.

Doabia, Justice T.S. The Law of Services and Dismissals. Nagpur: Lexis Nexis

Butterworths Wadhwa, 2011.

Kumar, Prof. Narender. Law relating to Government Servants & Management of

Disciplianry Proceedings. faridabad: allahabad law agency, 2008.

WEBLIOGRAPHY

32 http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/apex-court-sets-guidelines-to-curb-ad-hoc-appointments/ (visited on – 16th march)


http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/apex-court-sets-guidelines-to-curb-ad-hoc-appointments/


http://www.lawyersclubindia.com

http://www.vakilno1.com/judgements

www.indiankanoon.com


http://www.vakilno1.com/judgements

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/

Sale Under Tpa

Documents

Transcript of Sale Under Tpa