BALDEV SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for counting of ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority and for promotion. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as the Junior Draftsmen on ad hoc basis as on 18.01.1980. The initial orders of appointment were for a period of six months and it was later extended for a further period of six months. On 29.04.1980 they were directed to appear before the Staff Selection Commission Committee along with several other persons who responded to the advertisement. They were issued with orders of appointment on 08.12.1980. The tentative seniority list was issued on 01.12.1982 and the petitioners had been assigned a seniority position that reflected the appointment which was issued after the selection by the Staff Selection Commission Committee. They had also gained promotions to the next higher posts when again a tentative seniority list issued in the year 1987 and it was at that time representations had been given by the petitioners that they should be taken as appointed from the day when they were appointed on ad hoc basis on 07.01.1980 and they should be appropriately fixed in the seniority list. This was rejected by the Board on 05.03.1991 through the impugned order holding that in view of the Board's Instructions dated 05.07.1996, the period of ad hoc service would not count for promotion.

(2.) I find the writ petition itself to be wholly vexatious. If the appointment order itself revealed that it was purely ad hoc and they had also gained extension on two occasions which clearly set out and when he was directed to appear for interview and selected and issued with an order dated 8.12.1980, the first occasion when he could have had any objection to the seniority was when the tentative seniority list was circulated and when the objections were called for. The petitioners would state that they had made representations all through the years on 02.02.1983 and still later after they had promoted as Draftsmen on 28.08.1985 and again on 27.02.1987, 23.11.1990 and 04.12.1990. The respondent has specifically denied that there had been any representation made in the year 1983 or 1985 and that they had deliberately made to appear as though the petitioners were pursuing their rights. A seniority position which was finalized after circulating the tentative seniority list on the basis of which a further promotion had also been made in the year 1985 cannot be reopened for the first time in the year 1992 when the writ petition is filed. The rejection of the last representation on 05.03.1991 cannot afford to the petitioner any new cause of action, for the cause of action really arose only when the seniority position was finalized after circulating the tentative seniority list in the year 1982 itself. Further there is no clear evidence even whether the initial appointment had been done after going through the regular recruitment process. A mere recognition from the employment exchange cannot make any inference possible that recruitment done was as per Rules. If the selection was done through the Staff Selection Commission and the petitioners were allowed benefit of appearing before the interview for consideration of appointment, that itself ought to be taken as vindication of their rights on consideration when regular selection was in process. The Board was perfectly justified in referring to their own circular which incidentally is the legal position that the ad hoc officiation or the ad hoc appointment cannot at all times means a reckoning of that period for purpose of seniority and promotion. There could be instances where the Rules themselves provide for initial appointment in a regular appointment process to make it provisional or ad hoc which after a period of probation could be regularized. In such situations, ad hoc service will also count for the regular service, if there had been no break. The same shall not be used indiscriminately in all situations where appointment is ad hoc for filling up temporary vacancies or to make over certain contingencies with specific information to a person who was so appointed that such appointment is purely provisional and it will have no bearing to secure the benefit of seniority or right of appointment as permanently to that post. I have not been shown that the initial appointment on ad hoc basis was permissible otherwise than through the recruitment process which was initiated subsequently when the staff selection committee was constituted and when the petitioners had the benefit of appearing for interview on selection.

(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed.