RAGHURAJ SINGH YSDAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. A. Sharma. J. What is the date with reference to which seniority of the petitioners is to be determined. Is it the date of their temporary/officiating ap pointment or is it the date of regularisa tion of their services this is the question, which is involved in this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 was appointed temporarily as Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as the S. D. I.) subject to his selection sub sequently by the Public Service Commis sion, U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) vide appointment letter dated 12-10-1965. But he was never selected subsequently by the Commission. PETITIONERs Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were ap pointed as temporary/officiating S. D. Is. vide appointment letter dated 15-10-1968, 5-3-1970 and 10-8-1972 respectively. These petitioners were also not selected by the commission. By order dated 10-6-1980 service of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was regularised under the U. P. Regularisation of ad hoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of Public Service Commis sion) Rules, 1979. The service of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 was also regularised under the said rules by orders dated 18-1-1981 and 27- 4-1980 respective ly. In 1973 the Commission issued an ad vertisement inviting applications for the posts of S. D. Is pursuant to which the Commission held the selection and recommended the names to be Govern ment for appointment. On the recommen dation of the Commission the Govern ment appointed 177 S. D. Is on temporary basis vide appointment letter dated 22-1-1976. The services of these appointees were confirmed and made permanent by orders dated 22-5-1980,8-10-1980 and 20-5-1981. The Government prepared a seniority list in 1985 in which 177 S. D. Is who were selected by the Commission, were shown seniors to the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. Although the petitioners are aggrieved by the seniority list in which they have been shown junior to the S. D. Is. who were appointed on the recommendation of the Commission, but they have neither prayed for its quashing nor have they impleaded those who have been shown as senior to them. The petitioners have merely prayed lor fixation of their seniority from the dates of their temporary appointments. The consequen tial relief of grant of the selection grade has also been claimed.

(3.) THE U. P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (on posts within the pur view of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Regularisation Rules) provides for regularisation of the service of the tem porary hoc appointees. Rule 2 gives over-riding effect to these rules. Rule 4, being relevant is reproduced below: "4. Regularisation of ad-hoc appoint ment.- (1) Any person who - (1) was directly appointed on ad-hoc basis before 1-1-1977 and is continuing in service, as such, on date of commencement of these rules; (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad-hoc appointment and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be after he has completed three years continuous service, shall be considered for regular appoint ment to permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. (2) In making regular appointment under these rules, reservation for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and other categories,-shall be made in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of recruit ment. (3) For the purpose of sub-rule (i), the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee and consulation with the Commis sion shall not be necessary. (4) THE appointing authority shall prepared an eligibility list of the candidates, ar ranged in order of seniority as determined from the date of order of appointment and, if two or more persons are appointed together from the ordej in which their names are arranged in the said appointment order, the list shall be placed before the Selection Committee alongwith their character rolls and such other records, pertaining to them, as may be considered necessary to judge their suitability. (5) THE Selection Committee shall con sider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records referred to in sub-rule (4 ). (6) THE Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates, the names in the list being arranged in order of seniorityand forwarded it to the appointing authority. " THE Rule 4 provides for considera tion of the cases of ad hoc appointees for their regular appointment on the basis of their record and suitability by a Selection Committee. THE candidates so selected are appointed under Rule 5, which is reproduced below: "5. Appointments.- THE appointing authority shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 make appointments from the list prepared under sub-rule (6) of the said rule in the order in which their names stand in the list. " In view of Rule 6 the appointments made under Rule 5 care deemed to be the appointments under the relevant service rules or orders. Rule 8 has laid down that if ad hoc appointee is not found suitable for regular appointment his service is to be terminated forthwith and such an employee is entitled to one month's salary. Rule 7, which dales with the fixation of seniority of the employees, who have been given substantive appointment under the Regularisation Rules is a under:' "7. (1) A person appointed under these rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with these rules and shall, in all cases, be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the relevant service rules, or as the case may be, the regular prescribed proce dure, prior to the appointment of such person under these rules. (2) If two or more persons are appointed together, their seniority inter se shall be deter mined in the order mentioned in the order of appointment. " In view of Rule 7 person, who is ap pointed under Rule 5 is entitled to seniority "only frcai the date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with these rules. " Such a person, there fore, gets the seniority from the date of regularisation of his service/the date of order of appointment under Rule 5. THE petitioners services were regularised under the regularisation rules and they were issued appointment letters under Rule 5 on 18-6-1980, 24-6-1980 and 18-1-1981. THEy will, therefore get the seniority from the said dates of their appointment letters issued under Rules 5. Rule 7 has statutory force and it cannot be ignored. THEy are, therefore, not entitled to get the seniority from the dates of their tem porary/officiating appointments.