STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SURINDER KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of five appeals filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent as all of them are directed against the common judgment/order dated 09,09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions directing the respondent-State of Haryana to count the ad hoc service rendered by the writ petitioners-respondents towards their seniority in the cadre of Lecturers in Government Colleges in Haryana. The learned Single Judge had drawn the facts from the present writ petition and therefore, there is no necessity to draw facts from the connected cases. It is the common case that the names of the petitioners were registered with different Employment Exchanges in Haryana. They responded to an advertisement for filling up the vacancies for the post of Lecturers (College Cadre) on ad hoc basis. The mode of recruitment was both by way of inviting direct applications as well as through sponsorship by Employment Exchange. In order to make the selections, a Selection Committee comprising of DPI (Colleges), an IAS Officer, a subject expert and the Deputy Director (Colleges), Haryana was constituted. The selection was purely on the basis of interview. On the basis of selection, appointments followed in the year 1976 onwards. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners continued to work as Lecturers from 1976 to 1988 and thereafter their services were regularized through Haryana Public Service Commission. The posts were temporary but likely to continue. On such regularization, appointees were put on probation for two years in the first instance. There was a condition in the appointment order that seniority would be fixed in accordance with the departmental rules and that such appointment will not affect the inter-se seniority of the candidates recommended by the Commission. In the meantime, the petitioners in accordance with the length of service etc., had been placed in senior scale, selection grade and while granting them these two benefits their ad hoc service was counted. They were also granted benefit of leave and other service benefits as they were regularly appointed Lecturers. They were also granted benefit of the guidelines of the UGC for grant of benefit of revised pay-scale as per Government letter dated 08.12.2000 (Annexure P-4). The issue of counting of past service, has inter alia, been decided in the said Government instructions. The petitioners relied on this letter before the learned Single Judge to fortify their case for counting of their ad hoc service towards their seniority. According to the petitioners, on the date of appointment on ad hoc basis, their services were governed by the Punjab Subordinate Educational Service Rules, 1937 (for short 'the 1937 Rules').

(2.) The Government however, refused to grant them the benefit of ad hoc service which led to the filing of the writ petition referable to this appeal. It took the stand that ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners could not be counted towards seniority in terms of Rule 11 of the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service Rules, 1986 (for short 'the 1986 Rules') which provides for determination of seniority on the basis of continuous length of service rendered on regular basis.

(3.) The interpretation of the respondent-State is that only a regular appointee is entitled to seniority in the cadre of service and consequently, the seniority of the petitioners can only be reckoned from the date of their regularization and not from the date of their appointment on ad hoc basis. From the perusal of record, it comes out that the first seniority list of college cadre Lecturers showed the position as it existed on 04.02.1987; second on 01.01.1993, third on 01.09.1997 and the fourth one on 01.01.2004. The petitioners have been shown even below the candidates of the Colleges taken over by the State.