service law.docx

SERVICE LAW

TOPIC – STATUS OF AD HOC EMPLOYEES AND THEIR REGULARIZATION

SUBMITTED TO - PROF. SUBMITTED BY – SHIVAM SHARMA

ROLL NO. – 150/11

UILS

PANJAB

UNIVERSITY

-University Institute Of Legal Studies-

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

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 ‘STATUS OF AD

HOC EMPLOYEES AND THEIR REGULARIZATION, 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. MEANING OF AD HOC APPOINTMENT-------------------------------------6

5. ADHOCISM- ARBITRATY AND DISCRIMINATORY-------------------------8

6. STATUS OF AD HOC EMPLOYEES----------------------------------------9

7. RIGHTS OF AN AD HOC APPOINTEE-------------------------------------10

8. PROCEDURE FOR MAKING AD HOC APPOINTMENTS------------------11

9. PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO AD HOC APPOINTEES-------------------11

10. TERMINATION OF SERVICE-------------------------------------------------12

11. REGULARIZATION OF AD HOC EMPLOYEES ----------------------------13

12. COUNTING OF AD HOC SERVICE TOWARDS SENIORITY---------------15

13. BENEFIT OF SENIORITY, PROMOTION AND PENSION TO AD HOC EMPLOYEES 17

14. LATEST GUIDELINES BY THE SUPREME COURT------------------------------18

15. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND WEBLIOGRAPHY -------------------------------------19

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 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

1 J.&K Public Service Commission V. Narinder Mohan AIR 1994 SC 18082 AIR 2000 SC 28083 Justice T.S Doabia, “The law of Services and dismissals”,4th edition, vol1, Nagpur, pg-756



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

ADHOCISM- ARBITRATY 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

4 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 3628 Prof. Narender Kumar, “Law relating to Government Servants & Management of Disciplinary Proceedings”, 2008, pg-173



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 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.

9 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



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.

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

13 Saroj Kumar V .State of Punjab, 1998(5) SLR (P. &H.)26614 Supra 3 pg- 75615 (1992)4 SCC 33



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,

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

16 P.K. Majumdar and O.P. Tiwari, “Service Laws in India”, 3rd ed, Orient Publishing Company, pg-189



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;

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

17 Supra 8 pg- 17818 Supra 3 pg-75719 O.P. Gupta V. M.C. Delhi, 1973(1) SLR 209



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”.

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.

REGULARIZATION 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

20 2008(2) SLR 321 (SC)21 1967(1)SLR 128 (SC)22 AIR 1989 SC 1431



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.

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.

23 AIR 1992 SC 2130



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 24 AIR 1994 SC 180825 AIR 1997 SC 1628



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.

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 officiating 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;

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



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 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, regularization 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 regularization 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 regularization 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

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



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

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

29 Supra 3 pg- 76430 1999 (5) SLR 497 (P. & H).31 (2006) 6 SCC 558



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.

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.

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/


WEBLIOGRAPHY

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com

http://www.vakilno1.com/judgements

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

ad-hoc-appointments/ (visited on – 16th march)

www.indiankanoon.com




http://www.vakilno1.com/judgements

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/

service law.docx

Documents

Transcript of service law.docx