PUSHPA CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, assistant surgeons in the Department of Health were regularised under the provisions of M.P. Regularisation of ad hoc Appointment Rules, 1986 (in short 'the Rules') on various dates in the June, 1997. The order of regularisation stipulated that on initially period they would be on probation for two years and their services were liable to be terminated during the probation period on satisfaction of certain conditions. Under the terms of the aforesaid order their past services were not counted towards the seniority. It is urged in the petition that by virtue of such regularisation their past services cannot be totally wiped out. It is also putforth that they continued in the Department without any break of service, earned increments and were allowed to cross the efficiency bar and hence, they could not have been appointed on probation. A reference has been made to Rules 19 and 21 of the Recruitment Rules which deal with the probation. It is the stand in the petition that when the petitioners were regularised under the Regularisation Rules it is to be deemed that other conditions would be deemed to have been relaxed. In essence, the grievance of the petitioner is that the seniority has to be computed from the date of appointment. In this backdrop prayer has been made for quashing of the conditions 2, 4 and 5 of the order of regularisation and command to the respondents to treat the petitioners as duly appointed persons under the Recruitment Rules and to confer them all the benefits of seniority.

(2.) A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioners were appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis on stop gap arrangement. They were obliged under the Public Service Conditions under the Recruitment Rules, 1967. The petitioners could not be successful in clearing the selection process by getting themselves recruited directly through Public Service Commission. By benevolent gesture on the part of the State Government they were appointed under the ad hoc appointment Rules. It is putforth that the petitioners were initially appointed de hors the Recruitment Rules and, therefore, they cannot claim seniority from the date of initial appointment.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Jitendra Tiwari, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the State.