PRITPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were appointed as clerks on ad-hoc basis by the Superintendent Engineer in the year 1972 under Rule 4 of the Punjab Public Works Subordinate Services (B&R Branch) Rules, 1934, after their names had been requisitioned from the Employment Exchange. The necessity of making the appointments in this manner, appears to have arisen because at the time when their appointments were sought to be made, the Subordinate Services Selection Board, had been dissolved and the State Government had directed that the Appointing Authority, which in the case of the petitioners was the Superintending Engineer, should made the appointments.

(2.) It appears, in the meanwhile, that the private respondents herein were appointed as clerks by the Secretary of the defunct Punjab Service Selection Board. The petitioners along with several others, apprehending that their services would be terminated on the arrival of candidates selected by the Secretary, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2434 of 1973 (Ashok Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others), challenging the selection made by the Secretary. This writ petition was allowed by the Learned Single Judge on 15.1.1974 with the following observations :

(3.) It appears that as a consequence of the observations of the Learned Single Judge (as quoted above), the Department decided to continue with the services of the petitioners in the present writ petition, who were respondents in that matter. It is the conceded position that some of the present writ petitioners, who were petitioners in that case are still in service. The State Government subsequently issued a seniority list Annexure P. 7 dated 3.11.1982 in which the private respondents herein were shown to be senior keeping to be senior keeping in view their continuous length of service. The present writ petition has been filed impugning Annexure P. 7. The argument of the petitioner is that after the appointment of the private respondents made by the Secretary of the Board had been quashed by the Learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 2434 of 1973, the date of appointment given to the respondents could not be based on the selection made by the Secretary. A reply has been filed by the respondents and the facts stated above have not been denied. It has, however, been pointed out by Mr. Grewal, the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners had been appointed on an ad hoc basis and as such, they could not get the benefit of their ad-hoc service towards seniority.